Christopher Hart v Information Commissioner

Christopher Hart v Information Commissioner

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the application under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 because the ICO had already investigated and issued an outcome to the applicant's complaint. Section 166 is a procedural remedy for progressing pending complaints, not for reviewing or re-investigating complaints where an outcome has been given. The applicant's attempt to challenge the adequacy of the investigation or to obtain a different outcome falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant: Christopher Hart; Respondent: Information Commissioner (ICO)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction and no realistic prospects of success.
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Failings, ICO Discretion, Access to Medical Records
Data Protection Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Jurisdiction of Tribunal Procedural Failings ICO Discretion Access to Medical Records

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Hart

Applicant

Information Commissioner (ICO)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 after an outcome has been issued
  2. 2 Whether the ICO failed to take appropriate procedural steps in handling the applicant's complaint
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is seeking to challenge the outcome rather than procedural steps

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the application under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 because the ICO had already investigated and issued an outcome to the applicant's complaint. Section 166 is a procedural remedy for progressing pending complaints, not for reviewing or re-investigating complaints where an outcome has been given. The applicant's attempt to challenge the adequacy of the investigation or to obtain a different outcome falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of jurisdiction and no realistic prospects of success.

Orders

  • The Applicant’s application for an order under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c).
  • The hearing on 9th April 2025 is vacated.