Tianli Cui v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 1047 (GRC)
Shimaa Hatab v Information Commissioner
4 January 2024
[2023] UKFTT 1065 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about a data protection issue. The Commissioner investigated and decided against further action. The complainant tried to challenge this decision in court, but the court ruled it couldn't review the merits of the Commissioner’s decision, only whether the Commissioner followed proper procedure. The challenge failed because the court only deals with procedural issues and not the substance of the original complaint.
Key Facts
- •Shimaa Hatab (Applicant) applied to the Tribunal under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) concerning a complaint to the Information Commissioner (Respondent).
- •The Applicant's complaint involved a data subject access request, data security, and alleged disclosure of personal data.
- •The Commissioner closed the case after investigation, providing a response and a case review.
- •The Applicant sought an order for access to information, including email logs and Skype call details.
- •The Commissioner argued the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the Tribunal's powers under section 166 are limited to procedural issues, not substantive outcomes.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's powers under section 166 DPA are limited to procedural failings in the Commissioner's handling of a complaint, not the merits of the complaint itself.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 166; 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 Information Commissioner has broad discretion in investigating complaints and determining the extent of any investigation.
R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2023] 1 WLR 1327 (High Court and Court of Appeal)
Outcomes
The proceedings were struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.
The Tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the Applicant's case succeeding, as it sought to challenge the merits of the Commissioner's response, which is beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166 DPA.