Dr Michael Guy Smith v The Information Commissioner

Dr Michael Guy Smith v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to order further steps or review the merits of the Commissioner's decision once an outcome has been provided. The application is an impermissible attempt to challenge the substantive outcome and must be struck out.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Michael Guy Smith; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Tribunal Application / Strike Out Application Determination
Outcome
Application struck out
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Remedies, Subject Access Requests
Data Protection Information Rights Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Jurisdiction of Tribunal Procedural Remedies Subject Access Requests

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Michael Guy Smith

Applicant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Tribunal Application / Strike Out Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to order further steps after an outcome has been provided
  2. 2 Whether the application is an impermissible attempt to challenge the merits of the Commissioner's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to order further steps or review the merits of the Commissioner's decision once an outcome has been provided. The application is an impermissible attempt to challenge the substantive outcome and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application struck out

Orders

  • The Respondent’s application to strike out the application is granted.
  • The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c) as an application that cannot be made to this Tribunal and with no prospect of success.