Tianli Cui v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 1047 (GRC)
Dennis Howard v The Information Commissioner
22 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 939 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about Google search results. The Commissioner decided against them. They appealed to a Tribunal, but the Tribunal said it couldn't change the Commissioner's mind. The appeal was thrown out because the law only lets the Tribunal help move complaints along, not reverse decisions.
Key Facts
- •Applicant (Dennis Howard) appealed the Information Commissioner's decision regarding a data processing request, not a Freedom of Information request.
- •The appeal concerned Google search results including the Applicant's name and location.
- •The Information Commissioner determined the search results did not infringe the right to be forgotten.
- •The Respondent applied to strike out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- •The Applicant argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Legal Principles
Section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 allows applications to the Tribunal to progress complaints, but not to challenge the outcome of an investigation.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 166
The Tribunal lacks power to investigate or supervise the Information Commissioner's investigations.
Killock & others v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241; Cortes v Information Commissioner (UA-2023-001298-GDPA)
The Tribunal's powers are limited to those conferred by statute.
Various
Judicial review is the appropriate avenue for challenging the reasonableness of the Information Commissioner's decision-making.
Various
Outcomes
The Applicant's application was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the Information Commissioner's decision on the merits. The application fell outside the scope of section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018.