My understanding is that in the United Kingdom the discretion exists for the government to decide whether or not it wishes to assert cabinet privilege, in effect, under the legislation. Always having regard to other considerations, to public interest considerations, it is open for cabinet--again, it is my understanding--in response to a freedom of information request to choose to disclose what would otherwise be shielded as a cabinet confidence. This has been the case since the law came into force in early 2005.
The review that is available for that, of course, lies first with the Information Commissioner, who makes a determination on these issues, with an appeal, in that instance, to the specialist information tribunal and then the possibility of judicial review after that. A good example of how that review process has worked over the last year or so is that my colleague there, Richard Thomas, in February of 2008 ordered disclosure of the minutes of the cabinet meeting at which the decision was taken to go to war in Iraq. That decision was upheld earlier this year by the information tribunal.
Ultimately, it would fall to the government to decide whether to seek judicial review or issue a ministerial notice declining to respond to the binding orders at two levels, and ultimately having to be accountable for that in Parliament.