Irwin Ramsay v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 791 (GRC)
Keith Vernon Gell v The Information Commissioner
2 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 713 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained about how the Information Commissioner handled their data complaint. The Tribunal said they couldn't interfere with the Commissioner's decision because that's not their job; only the High Court can do that. The complaint was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •The case concerns an appeal against the Information Commissioner's handling of a data protection complaint.
- •The Appellant argues the investigation was inadequate.
- •The Tribunal considered the decisions in R (Delo) v Information Commissioner and Cortes v Information Commissioner.
- •Section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 was central to the arguments.
Legal Principles
The Information Commissioner has exclusive discretion in handling complaints, deciding the scope and depth of investigations, and whether to reach a conclusive determination.
R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2023] 1 WLR 1327, paragraph 57
Section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is a limited procedural provision; the Tribunal specifies 'steps to respond' but doesn't assess the appropriateness of an already given response.
Cortes v Information Commissioner (UA-2023-001298-GDPA), paragraph 33
The Tribunal lacks oversight of the Information Commissioner's Office's internal processes; that function lies with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the High Court.
Paragraph 20
Section 166 DPA 2018 doesn't provide a right of appeal against the substantive outcome of an investigation under s.165.
Paragraph 24
Outcomes
The Tribunal dismissed the application.
The Tribunal lacks the power to review the Information Commissioner's substantive findings or to supervise their functions. The application was deemed a misuse of Tribunal resources.