defence in an action for breach of confidence then the exemption is not maintained. 35. In Coco -v- A N Clark (Engineers) Limited [1968] F.S.R.415 Megarry J identified a three part test to determine if the obligation of confidence is brought into being. These parts are first that the information must have the necessary quality of confidence. Secondly the information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. The third element is that there must be unauthorised use of the information. 36. Coco also referred to whether a claimant would need to show detriment resulting from the unauthorised use. Meggary J (at 48) recognised that it might in some situations not apply and in Bluck v ICO & Epsom and St Helier University Hospital NHS Trust, EA/2006/0090 the Tribunal in dealing with a request for the medical records of a deceased child by her parent held:“... the principle to be drawn from this is that, if disclosure would be contrary to an individual's reasonable expectation of maintaining confidentiality in respect of his or her private information, then the absence of detriment in the sense apparently contemplated in the argument presented on behalf of the Appellant, is not a necessary ingredient of the cause of action. …” 37. In Derry City Council -v- the Information Commissioner (EA/2006/0014) the Tribunal set out the following list of issues to be determined when considering section 41:(a) was the information obtained by the Council from a third party, for the purposes of section 41(1)(a) and, if so (b) would its disclosure constitute an actionable breach of confidence, that is: (i) did the information have the necessary quality of confidence to justify the imposition of a contractual or equitable obligation of confidence?; if so (ii) was the information communicated in circumstances that created such an obligation?; and, if so (iii) would disclosure be a breach of that obligation?; and, if this part of the test was satisfied: (c) would the Council nevertheless have had a defence to a claim for breach of confidence based on the public interest in disclosure of the information? 38. In Evans v Information Commissioner [2012] UKUT 313 (AAC) the UT held (at 38):- 11