Graham Nightingale v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 19 (GRC)
G Brida v The Information Commissioner
28 April 2023
[2023] UKFTT 401 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed to a court late because they were confused about the rules and had a disability. The court said they couldn't help because the other side had already made a final decision, so the appeal was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Applicant's Notice of Appeal was filed late (131 days)
- •Applicant is a litigant in person with a disability
- •Applicant claims he was unaware of the time limit and found guidance confusing
- •Applicant sought an order under s. 166 DPA 2018 to compel a fresh investigation by the ICO
- •ICO issued an outcome letter on 14 December 2022, with which the applicant disagreed
- •The appeal concerns the Information Commissioner's handling of a complaint
Legal Principles
Principles for extending time limits
Data Select Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 187 (TCC); Leeds City Council v HMRC [2014] UKUT 0350 (TCC); BPP University College of Professional Studies v HMRC [2014] UKUT 496 (TCC)
Tribunal's limited powers under s. 166 DPA 2018
s. 166 DPA 2018; R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin)
Tribunal lacks supervisory jurisdiction over ICO complaint handling; cannot review ICO's decision to take no further action.
R (Delo) v ICO [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin) at [128]
Outcomes
Refusal to admit the Notice of Appeal out of time
Significant delay (131 days), even with a good explanation for the delay, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the ICO's outcome letter ended the 'pending' status of the complaint under s.166 DPA 2018, leading to a mandatory strike-out under rule 8(2)(a).
Similar Cases
Ivan Murray-Smith v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 697 (GRC)
Jefferson Moutinho Arnauth v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 217 (GRC)
Ashu Mathia Ashu v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 383 (GRC)
Frederico Garcia Lopes De La Torre v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 304 (GRC)