Tianli Cui v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 1047 (GRC)
Lauren Sharp v Information Commissioner
14 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 904 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about how their data was handled. The Commissioner investigated and decided there was no problem. The person then went to a Tribunal, hoping they'd overturn the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal said they couldn't do that; they can only look at whether the Commissioner followed the right *process*, not whether the Commissioner's final decision was correct.
Key Facts
- •Lauren Sharp applied to the Tribunal under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) concerning two complaints against Salvesen Mindroom and the City of Edinburgh Council for disclosing her personal data without consent.
- •The Information Commissioner (Commissioner) investigated both complaints and provided outcomes to Sharp, finding no data protection breaches.
- •Sharp challenged the Commissioner's investigation, alleging procedural flaws and the concealment of evidence.
- •The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive outcome of the complaints, only procedural failings under section 166 DPA.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's powers under section 166 DPA are limited to procedural issues, not the merits of a complaint.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 166
Allegations of inadequate investigation cannot be used to collaterally attack the outcome of a complaint.
Killock v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241; R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2023] 1 WLR 1327; Cortes v Information Commissioner (UA-2023-001298-GDPA)
The Commissioner has broad discretion in investigating complaints, including deciding the scope and depth of the investigation and whether to reach a conclusive determination on infringement.
R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2023] 1 WLR 1327 (High Court and Court of Appeal)
Outcomes
The proceedings were struck out.
The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of the Applicant's case succeeding as it challenged the substantive outcome of the Commissioner's investigation, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166 DPA.