Ashu Mathia Ashu v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 383 (GRC)
Frederico Garcia Lopes De La Torre v The Information Commissioner
21 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 304 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed a decision to throw out their case about a complaint against the Information Commissioner. The judge said the appeal wasn't strong enough because the complaint was already closed, and the initial decision wasn't a full trial, so the standards were different.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Registrar's ruling striking out appeal under Tribunal Rule 8(3)(c).
- •Original appeal sought an order under s.166 Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) due to alleged inadequate steps by the Information Commissioner (ICO).
- •ICO concluded the complaint with an outcome letter dated 17 August 2022.
- •Applicant argued Registrar's decision was irrational, failed to consider evidence, misapplied law, and provided inadequate reasons.
- •Applicant's application for permission to appeal was made after an application for reconsideration under Tribunal Rule 4(3).
Legal Principles
Standard for granting permission to appeal: a realistic prospect of success.
Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538
Strike-out application standard: realistic prospect of success at full hearing, avoiding a 'mini-trial'.
HMRC v Fairford Group [2014] UKUT 0329 (TCC)
Tribunal's powers under s.166 DPA 2018 are limited to ordering the Commissioner to take specified steps; it doesn't extend to reviewing merits-based outcome decisions after a complaint is concluded.
R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Tribunal has no supervisory jurisdiction over ICO's complaint handling; it cannot review the ICO's decision to take no further action.
R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
Applicant's grounds of appeal were not arguable; they held the Registrar to trial standards instead of the appropriate strike-out standard. The ICO concluded the complaint, removing the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s.166 DPA 2018.