Tianli Cui v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 1047 (GRC)
Dr Michael Guy Smith v The Information Commissioner
2 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 266 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained about how the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) dealt with their data protection issue. A court decided the ICO had done a good enough job and refused to change the outcome. The court said it's important to trust the ICO's expertise unless there's a really good reason not to.
Key Facts
- •Applicant appealed a decision of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to the First-tier Tribunal.
- •The appeal concerned the ICO's handling of the Applicant's data protection complaint under section 166 of the relevant legislation.
- •The Applicant alleged procedural irregularities in the ICO's investigation, including bias and inadequate disclosure.
- •The Tribunal considered the case in light of the Upper Tribunal decision in Killock & Veale.
- •The Applicant argued that the ICO was subject to a 'duty of candour' and that the Tribunal could 'wind back the clock' to remedy procedural irregularities.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal must respect the ICO's special position as an expert regulator and have a good reason to interfere with its regulatory judgment.
Killock & Veale, paras 85/86
Section 166 remedy is forward-looking, aimed at addressing ongoing procedural issues, not necessarily overturning previous decisions.
Delo (per Mostyn J) and Killock & Veale, para 87
The Tribunal must ensure the section 166 process is not used to achieve a different complaint outcome.
Killock & Veale, para 87
The ICO has broad discretion to decide whether and how to investigate a complaint.
Killock & Veale [76]
Outcomes
The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's appeal.
The Tribunal found the Applicant's allegations of bias and inadequate disclosure to be speculative and unproven. It considered the ICO had conducted an adequate investigation and that the Applicant's use of section 166 was not solely to obtain a different outcome. The Tribunal also noted a previous refusal of specific disclosure by Judge Neville.