Amanda Barrow v The Information Commissioner

Amanda Barrow v The Information Commissioner

The Commissioner complied with procedural requirements under section 166(1) DPA 2018 by providing an outcome and updates; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the complaint, and there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Parties
Appellant: Amanda Barrow; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Procedural Requirements Under Data Protection Act 2018, Section 166 DPA Applications, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Commissioner's Investigation Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Barrow

Appellant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Strike Out Decision

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner failed to comply with procedural requirements under section 166(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order a substantive investigation into the merits of the complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner complied with procedural requirements under section 166(1) DPA 2018 by providing an outcome and updates; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the complaint, and there is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • The application is struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 because there is no reasonable prospect of the Applicant’s case, or part of it, succeeding.