Gilbert Robertson v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 630 (GRC)
Thomas Deacon v The Information Commissioner
2 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 596 (GRC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone complained to the Information Commissioner about a company not giving them their data. The Commissioner investigated and decided the company was okay. The person disagreed and tried to appeal. The court said the appeal was wrong because you can only appeal the Commissioner's process, not their final decision. If they disagree with the final decision, they need to sue the company separately.
Key Facts
- •Thomas Deacon appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) after the Information Commissioner (IC) concluded an investigation into his complaint against Interpath Advisory.
- •Deacon's complaint concerned Interpath's response to his subject access request.
- •The IC found that Interpath had responded appropriately.
- •Deacon disagreed with the IC's decision and sought an order from the FTT to obtain his employment records.
- •The IC applied to strike out Deacon's appeal.
Legal Principles
An application under s166 DPA is limited to procedural failings in the IC's handling of a complaint and does not allow a challenge to the merits of the underlying complaint or its outcome.
R (Delo) v Information Commissioner [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin); Killock and Veale v ICO [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC)
The FTT can strike out proceedings if there is no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 8(3)(c); Swain v Hillman & Another [1999] EWCA Civ 3053
Section 166 DPA allows a data subject to apply to the Tribunal if the Commissioner fails to take certain procedural actions regarding their complaint (failure to respond, failure to provide timely information on progress or outcome).
Section 166 DPA
Outcomes
The IC's application to strike out Deacon's appeal was granted.
The appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because s166 DPA only addresses procedural failings in the IC's handling of a complaint, not the merits of the complaint's outcome. The IC had concluded their investigation and communicated the outcome; Deacon's dissatisfaction with that outcome was not a ground for appeal under s166.