Key Facts
- •Solomon Browne (Applicant) applied to the First-tier Tribunal under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) against the Information Commissioner (Respondent).
- •The application challenged the Commissioner's decision that Indeed Recruitment had not breached data protection legislation.
- •The Applicant sought an injunction against Indeed to prevent publication of his personal data and argued the Commissioner's investigation was inadequate.
- •The Commissioner applied to strike out the application under Tribunal Procedure Rules 2009, rule 8(2)(a) (no jurisdiction) and/or rule 8(3)(c) (no reasonable prospects of success).
Legal Principles
Section 166 DPA 2018 applications do not allow challenges to the substantive outcome of a complaint; only procedural aspects can be reviewed.
Killock & Veale & ors v Information Commissioner [2021]UKUT 299 (AAC)
The Tribunal cannot retrospectively order the Commissioner to take steps leading to a different outcome; challenges to the lawfulness or rationality of the Commissioner's decision are for judicial review, not the Tribunal.
Killock & Veale and R (on the application of Delo) v Information Commissioner and Wise Payments Limited [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin), upheld by Court of Appeal [2023] EWCA Civ 1141
The Tribunal specifies appropriate steps to respond to a complaint, not the appropriateness of a response already given.
Cortes v The Information Commissioner (Appeal No: UA2023-001298-GDPA)
Outcomes
The application was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the Commissioner's decision or issue an injunction. The Applicant's arguments did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success.