Lee Cruickshank v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 730 (GRC)
Benjamin Aaron Rutt v The Information Commissioner
13 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 838 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Mr. Rutt disagreed with the Information Commissioner's decision about his complaint. The court said it couldn't change the Commissioner's mind about the facts, only if the Commissioner made a mistake in their process. Since Mr. Rutt didn't claim a process mistake, the court dismissed his case.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Benjamin Aaron Rutt applied to the Tribunal under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).
- •The application challenged the Information Commissioner's decision on Mr. Rutt's complaint.
- •The Information Commissioner applied to strike out the application.
- •The Applicant did not provide representations in response to the strike-out application.
- •The Information Commissioner concluded on 13 April 2023 that the data controller complied with data protection obligations.
Legal Principles
Section 166 DPA 1998 allows Tribunal orders against the Commissioner only for procedural failures.
Data Protection Act 1998
The Tribunal cannot review the merits of a complaint to the Commissioner or its outcome.
Killock & Veale & ors v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC) and R (on the application of Delo) v Information Commissioner and Wise Payments Ltd [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Tribunals can strike out applications with no reasonable prospects of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
The application under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 1998 was struck out.
The application lacked reasonable prospects of success as it challenged the merits of the Commissioner's decision, which is beyond the Tribunal's remit under section 166. The Applicant's arguments focused on disagreements with the Commissioner's findings and not on procedural failures.