Patrick Wainwright v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 262 (GRC)
David Wright v The Information commissioner
13 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 758 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
David complained about how the Information Commissioner handled his case. The court said it couldn't review the decision itself, only procedural problems, and threw the case out.
Key Facts
- •David Wright (applicant) applied to the First-tier Tribunal under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to challenge the Information Commissioner's (respondent) decision on his complaint.
- •The Information Commissioner applied to strike out the application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
- •Wright's complaint centered on the Information Commissioner's handling of a legal professional privilege claim by a data controller.
- •Wright argued the Commissioner failed to adequately explain the decision and improperly determined the applicability of the exemption.
Legal Principles
Section 166 DPA 1998 provides a mechanism to address ongoing procedural defects in complaint handling, not to challenge the substantive outcome of a complaint.
Data Protection Act 1998, section 166
The Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166 is limited to remedying procedural defects and does not extend to reviewing the merits of the Information Commissioner's decision on the substance of a complaint.
Leighton v Information Commissioner (No.2) [2020] UKUT 23 (AAC); Scranage v Information Commissioner [2020] UKUT 196 (AAC); Killock & Veale & others v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC)
Under section 166, the Tribunal assesses the appropriateness of steps to respond to a complaint, not the appropriateness of a response already given.
Killock v Veale
The Tribunal should consider the Information Commissioner's views when assessing the appropriateness of their actions in handling complaints.
Killock v Veale, paragraph 85
Outcomes
The application under section 166 DPA 1998 was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive outcome of the Information Commissioner's decision. The applicant was attempting to use section 166 to challenge the merits of the decision, rather than address procedural defects.