Struck OutFirst-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)·25 de junho de 2026

Data Protection Appeal Struck Out: Understanding Tribunal Jurisdiction

Processo nº

📌 Em resumo

A person appealed a decision made by the Information Commissioner (IC) to the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal, led by Judge Sanger, decided to 'strike out' the appeal, meaning it would not hear the case. This was because the Tribunal found it didn't have the legal power (jurisdiction) to grant the types of solutions the person was asking for, and the IC had already given a final answer to their complaint.

⚖️ Tese Jurídica

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 if the remedies sought are not within its powers or if the Information Commissioner has already provided a substantive outcome.

Temas

data protection appealtribunal jurisdictionstrike out applicationInformation Commissioner's decisionremedies available

Dispositivos

s.166 Data Protection Act 2018Rule 8(2)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009Rule 8(3)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009Rule 8(4) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009Rule 24 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

📖 O que diz a lei

Section 166, Data Protection Act 2018

This section of the law allows individuals to appeal certain decisions made by the Information Commissioner, who oversees data protection in the UK. In this case, an appeal was brought under this section, but the Tribunal decided it did not have the power to hear it.

Ver o texto da lei

Orders to progress complaints to the Commissioner 166 1 This section applies where, after a data subject makes a complaint under section 165 ..., the Commissioner— a fails to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint, b fails to provide the complainant with information about progress on the complaint, or of the outcome of the complaint, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning when the Commissioner received the complaint, or c if the Commissioner's consideration of the complaint is not concluded during that period, fails to provide the complainant with such information durin…

Rule 8(2)(a), The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

This rule gives the Tribunal the power to 'strike out' or dismiss an appeal if it believes it does not have the legal authority, known as jurisdiction, to deal with the case. The Tribunal used this rule because it found it lacked the power to address the specific issues raised in the appeal.

Rule 8(3)(a), The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009

This rule allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal if the solutions or 'remedies' being requested by the person appealing are not within the Tribunal's legal powers to grant. Here, the Tribunal concluded it could not provide the type of outcome the appellant was seeking.

Explicação em linguagem simples — não substitui orientação de um advogado.

📖 Resumo técnico

An appeal against an Information Commissioner's decision was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) for lack of jurisdiction, as the remedies sought were outside the Tribunal's powers and an outcome had already been provided.

📜 Ementa Documento oficial

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) struck out an appeal brought under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 against a decision of the Information Commissioner. Judge Sanger found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the remedies sought by the appellant were not within the Tribunal's powers, and an outcome had already been provided by the Information Commissioner. The Tribunal did not make a finding on whether the incorrect form was used, as the jurisdictional issues were sufficient for the strike-out under Rule 8(2)(a) and 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

📚 Inteiro teor Documento oficial

NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00961 (GRC) Case No. FT/EA/2026/0194/GDPR In the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Before: Judge Sanger Appellant: [APPELLANT] Respondent: The Information Commissioner DECISION 1) The appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. The application has no real prospect of success. REASONS 2) An appeal was filed under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 on 26 th April 2026. The appeal was made on form GRC1.

3) The original appeal form seeks the following outcomes: (i) Declaration of ICO failings; (ii) Completion of a proper investigation; (iii) Clear my name: a clear statement that I did nothing wrong.

4) On 16 th June 2026 the Respondent provided his response. In it, he made these principal submissions: (iv) the appeal was filed using the incorrect form. It should have been made on form GRC3. Accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it, pursuant to Rule 8(2)(a); (v) there is no reasonable prospect of success because an outcome was provided to the Appellant on 20 th April 2026; (vi) there is no reasonable prospect of success because the remedy sought by the Appellant is not one which it is open to the Tribunal to make; (vii) there is no reasonable prospect of success because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider a procedural failure by the Respondent and in this case the Appellant seeks to challenge the substantive outcome.

5) On 21 st June 2026 the Appellant provided a response to the Respondent’s application to strike out the matter. In it she argued that: (i) Her former employer, the party against whom she had complained, had not complied with its notification requirements under articles 33 and 34 UKGDPR and this was not dealt with by the IC in his response; (ii) Her former employer had breached many of the principles of Article 5 UKGDPR and she had the right to complain about this to the IC; (iii) The IC did not fully investigate all her complaints.

6) As is required by Rule 8(4), I am satisfied that the Appellant has had fair notice of the application and was made aware of the requirement to respond to it. She has provided a response under Rule 24. This response does not directly address the application to strike out.

7) I make no findings regarding the appeal having been submitted on the incorrect form. Had my findings been otherwise in respect of the strike out application I might have done so but I see no need.

8) Rule 8(2)(a) provides that the Tribunal must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them.

9) In this case, I cannot see how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 for these reasons: (i) the remedy sought is not one which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; (ii) the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in a case in which an outcome has already been provided.

10) The decision is made in accordance with the overriding objective and Rule 8(2)(a). Signed: Judge Sanger Date: 25 th June 2026

📊 Como os tribunais decidem casos parecidos

Entre 11 decisões semelhantes neste acervo:

Struck Out10 casos

Dismissed1 caso

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Dismisses Application Against ICO After Complaint Outco…

Panorama deste acervo — não é previsão do resultado do seu caso.

⚖️ O que costuma pesar em casos assim

❌ Costuma ser rejeitado

The appeal asks for solutions that are outside the Tribunal's limited powers, which are mainly about procedural steps.
The appeal challenges the main decision of the Information Commissioner, rather than a procedural error.
The person appealing did not provide a valid Decision Notice.
The person appealing repeatedly failed to follow the Tribunal's instructions or deadlines.
The application was submitted too late.

Padrões observados nos casos semelhantes deste acervo — cada processo é único.

❓ Perguntas frequentes

What did this decision decide?

The First-tier Tribunal decided to strike out an appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision, meaning the case would not proceed because the Tribunal lacked the legal power to hear it.

Who was involved?

The person who brought the appeal (the appellant) and the Information Commissioner (the respondent).

How did the court decide, and why?

The Tribunal decided to strike out the appeal because it found it did not have the 'jurisdiction' (legal power) to grant the specific remedies the appellant was asking for, and because the Information Commissioner had already provided an outcome to the complaint.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The main laws and rules applied were Section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Rule 8 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, which deals with striking out cases.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important argument was whether the Tribunal had the legal power to hear the case and provide the solutions the appellant was seeking, especially since the Information Commissioner had already given a decision.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the person who brought the case, as their appeal was struck out and not heard on its merits.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

If you are appealing an Information Commissioner's decision, you must ensure that the remedies you are seeking are within the Tribunal's powers and that you are using the correct forms and procedures, or your case may be struck out.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The original appeal form, the Information Commissioner's response, and the appellant's response to the strike-out application were key documents considered by the Tribunal.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Generally, decisions of the First-tier Tribunal can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal, but specific rules and time limits apply, and permission to appeal is usually required.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always advisable to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for your specific case, especially when dealing with complex tribunal procedures and jurisdictional issues, to ensure your appeal is properly prepared and presented.

Fonte oficial: First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) — ementa e inteiro teor reproduzidos das bases públicas do tribunal.Resumo, tese, resumo técnico e perguntas: elaborados por Inteligência Artificial com base na ementa e no acórdão oficiais.