Key Facts
- •David Miles (Applicant) made a subject access request (SAR) to Brentwood Ursuline Convent High School (BUCHS).
- •BUCHS's response was unsatisfactory, leading to a complaint to the Information Commissioner (Commissioner).
- •The Commissioner initially failed to progress the complaint, prompting Miles to apply to the Tribunal under section 166(2) DPA.
- •After the Tribunal application, the Commissioner took action, contacting BUCHS and informing Miles.
- •The Commissioner sought to have the Tribunal application struck out.
Legal Principles
A Tribunal can strike out proceedings if there is no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 8(3)(c)
In determining a realistic prospect of success, the Tribunal must avoid a 'mini-trial'.
HMRC v Fairford Group [2014] UKUT 0329
The Tribunal should consider the interests of justice and balance them with the requirements of rule 2 of the GRC Rules.
AW v Information Commissioner and Blackpool CC [2013] 30 ACC
Section 166 DPA allows the Tribunal to order the Commissioner to take appropriate steps to respond to a complaint if they fail to do so within a timeframe.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 166
An application under section 166(2) DPA does not concern the merits of the underlying complaint, but rather the Commissioner's actions in responding to it. The Commissioner's opinion on appropriateness carries weight.
Killock & Veale v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 ACC
Outcomes
The application was struck out.
The Commissioner had taken action to address the complaint after the application was made, rendering the application moot. There was no reasonable prospect of success.