Lee Cruickshank v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 730 (GRC)
Stephen Laughton v The Information Commissioner
20 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 390 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about a company's data practices. The Commissioner investigated and made a decision. The complainant then tried to challenge that decision in court. The court said it couldn't change the Commissioner's decision; that's not what this type of court case is for. The complaint was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Laughton applied to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) against the Information Commissioner (ICO).
- •The application challenged the ICO's decision on Laughton's data protection complaint against an event organiser.
- •The ICO applied to strike out the application.
- •Laughton's complaint centered on the event organizer's collection of personal data, specifically 'gender identity', deemed irrelevant and discriminatory.
- •Laughton argued the ICO's response was inadequate, failing to consider evidence provided.
Legal Principles
Section 166 DPA 2018 applications do not allow challenges to the substantive outcome of a complaint; the tribunal cannot order the Commissioner to take steps leading to a different outcome.
Killock & Veale & ors v Information Commissioner [2021]UKUT 299 (AAC), R (on the application of Delo) v Information Commissioner and Wise Payments Limited [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin) (upheld by Court of Appeal at [2023] EWCA Civ 1141)
Challenges to the lawfulness of the ICO's process or the rationality of its decision are subject to judicial review by the High Court, not the Tribunal.
Killock & Veale and R (on the application of Delo) v Information Commissioner and Wise Payments Limited [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin), [2023] EWCA Civ 1141
Tribunal rule 8(3)(c) allows striking out an application with no reasonable prospects of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
The application was struck out.
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the ICO's decision. The applicant's arguments amounted to a challenge to the substantive outcome of the complaint, which is a matter for judicial review, not the Tribunal. There were no reasonable prospects of success.