I think their primary justification might be that they were allegedly the alleged interests of the trial participants.
The QMUL council has been informed about what is happening
http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/governance/council/committees/committee-papers/05-04-2016/178015.pdf
And the minutes state
QMUL was appealing to the First Tier Tribunal against a decision by the
Information Commissioner’s Office to require QMUL to disclose certain anonymous data in relation to a clinical study known as the PACE Trial. The
study had sought to test and compare the effectiveness of four of the main treatments currently available for people suffering from chronic fatigue
syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). There was a risk that patients would be less willing to participate in future clinical
trials at QMUL and across the sector if patient data were released.
The argument they put forward to their own governing body is incoherent in that the publicity around PACE and the way it has been run and trial results suppressed is far more likely to stop patients taking part in clinical trials. Also it is now a normal practice to have open data. Obviously the university of Manchester took a different view. It just shows that their is no effective governance for universities.
It is part of the principles report which shows that a decision to suppress trial data and spend huge amounts comes from the highest level.
Maybe they worry if the truth gets out no patient would ever take part in a QMUL trial ever again.