Robin Levi v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 1033 (GRC)
Dr. Stephen Fox v Information Commissioner
6 September 2024
[2024] UKFTT 805 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Dr. Fox complained that the DVLA didn't give him all the information he requested. The Information Commissioner (ICO) investigated and decided the DVLA had made mistakes but was now following the rules. Dr. Fox went to court to challenge the ICO's decision, but the judge said the court couldn't decide if the ICO's decision was right or wrong. The court only deals with whether the ICO followed proper procedures; they decided the ICO did and dismissed the case.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Stephen Fox complained to the ICO about the DVLA withholding information following a Subject Access Request.
- •The ICO investigated and concluded that the DVLA had made mistakes but was now complying with data protection obligations.
- •The ICO decided not to take further action.
- •Dr. Fox applied to the Tribunal under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, claiming the ICO failed to take appropriate steps.
- •The DVLA's alleged withholding of information concerned rejected driving licence applications.
Legal Principles
Section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a remedy for procedural failings by the ICO in handling complaints, not for challenging the merits of the complaint's outcome.
Data Protection Act 2018, Section 166
The Tribunal's power under section 166 is limited to ordering the ICO to take appropriate steps to respond to a complaint or provide information on progress/outcome; it cannot review the merits of the ICO's decision or award compensation.
Killock & others v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241
An application to strike out a case for lacking reasonable prospects of success should be considered similarly to a CPR 3.4 application in civil proceedings, avoiding a 'mini-trial'.
HMRC v Fairford Group [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC)
Section 166 is a forward-looking provision concerned with remedying ongoing procedural defects, not assessing the appropriateness of an already given response.
Killock & others v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241, paragraph 87
Challenging the rationality of the ICO's outcome is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction; such challenges fall within the ICO's regulatory competence or judicial review.
Cortes v Information Commissioner (UA-2023-001298-GDPA), [33]
Outcomes
The application was struck out.
The Tribunal found the application had no reasonable prospect of success because it sought to challenge the merits of the ICO's decision, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166. The ICO had progressed the complaint and provided an outcome.