Key Facts
- •Declan Hoyland applied to the tribunal under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) 7 months after the deadline.
- •The application challenged the Information Commissioner's (ICO) decision not to investigate a complaint against the United Nations (UN) due to the UN being outside the ICO's jurisdiction.
- •Hoyland argued the UN has a UK office and that the ICO’s decision breached his human rights.
- •Hoyland cited his mother's illness and his role as her carer as reasons for the delay.
Legal Principles
Applications under section 166 DPA must be made within 28 days of the expiry of six months from the date the Commissioner received the complaint.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, rule 22(6)(f)
The Commissioner's principal obligations are to address and deal with every complaint by arriving at and informing the complainant of some form of 'outcome', having investigated the subject matter 'to the extent appropriate'. This outcome does not require a conclusive determination on the merits of the complaint.
Delo v Information Commissioner and Wise Payments Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 1141
The tribunal has no power to deal with the merits of a complaint to the Commissioner or its outcome on a section 166 application.
Killock v Veale [2021]UKUT 299 (AAC)
Challenges to the lawfulness of the Commissioner's process or the rationality of their decision are matters for judicial review, not the tribunal.
Killock v Veale and R (on the application of Delo) v Information Commissioner [2022] EWHC 3046 (Admin), upheld by Court of Appeal
Outcomes
The Tribunal Judge refused to extend the time limit for the application.
The application was significantly out of time (7 months), the grounds were weak, and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the complaint against the UN.