Jefferson Moutinho Arnauth v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 217 (GRC)
Ashu Mathia Ashu v The Information Commissioner
19 April 2023
[2023] UKFTT 383 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner, who asked for more information. The person didn't provide it, so the Commissioner closed the case. The person appealed, but the court said it couldn't change the Commissioner's decision because the case was already closed.
Key Facts
- •Applicant (Ashu Mathia Ashu) appealed to the Tribunal under s. 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).
- •The Information Commissioner (ICO) responded, proposing a strike-out due to lack of prospects of success.
- •The ICO issued an outcome letter and a case review letter to the Applicant, deciding not to progress the complaint due to lack of further information.
- •The Applicant argued the ICO wrongly refused to process the complaint.
- •The Tribunal considered the case on the papers.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's powers under s. 166 DPA 2018 are limited to ordering the Commissioner to take specified steps to respond to a complaint; it cannot review the merits of the Commissioner's decision.
s. 166(2) and (3) DPA 2018; R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Section 166 DPA 2018 applies only to procedural deficiencies in pending complaints, not to merits-based outcome decisions.
R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin) [128]
The Tribunal has no supervisory jurisdiction over the ICO's handling of complaints and cannot review its decision to take no further action.
R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 166 DPA 2018 because the ICO's outcome letter meant the complaint was no longer pending. The appeal had no reasonable prospects of success.