Gilbert Robertson v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 630 (GRC)
Eryk Jan Grzeszkowiak v The Information Commissioner
3 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 574 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about a company not giving them all their data. The Commissioner investigated and gave a decision. The person disagreed and tried to appeal. The court said the appeal was wrong because the appeal was only about whether the Commissioner followed the right procedure, not about whether the Commissioner's decision was correct. To challenge the decision itself, the person needs to sue the company in a separate court case.
Key Facts
- •Eryk Jan Grzeszkowiak appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) following the Information Commissioner's (ICO) decision on his complaint against the University of Edinburgh for alleged GDPR infringements.
- •The ICO found that while there were delays, all requested information had been disclosed.
- •The Applicant disagreed with the ICO's conclusion.
- •The ICO applied to strike out the appeal under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 8(3)(c).
Legal Principles
Section 166 DPA provides a limited procedural remedy for failures by the ICO to respond to or provide information about a complaint, not a challenge to the merits of the complaint itself.
Data Protection Act 2018, Section 166
An application under s166 DPA does not allow a challenge to the substantive outcome of the ICO's investigation.
R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin); Killock and Veale v ICO [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC)
The Tribunal can strike out proceedings with no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 8(3)(c); Swain v Hillman & Another [1999] EWCA Civ 3053
Outcomes
The ICO's application to strike out the appeal was granted.
The appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success as section 166 DPA only addresses procedural failures by the ICO, not the merits of the underlying complaint. The ICO had concluded its investigation and communicated the outcome; the Applicant's dissatisfaction with that outcome is not grounds for appeal under s166.