Dr Piers Shallow v The Information Commissioner

Dr Piers Shallow v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 166 DPA 2018 is strictly procedural. As the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took steps to investigate, no procedural failing exists. The Tribunal cannot review the substantive merits of the complaint. There is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Parties
Applicant: Dr Piers Shallow; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Strike Out Application Decision
Outcome
Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Procedural Requirements Under Data Protection Act 2018, Tribunal Jurisdiction Under Section 166 DPA 2018, Complaint Handling by Information Commissioner
Data Protection Information Rights Procedural Requirements Under Data Protection Act 2018 Tribunal Jurisdiction Under Section 166 DPA 2018 Complaint Handling by Information Commissioner

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Piers Shallow

Applicant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Strike Out Application Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate procedural steps under Section 166(1) DPA 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the substantive outcome of a complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 166 DPA 2018 is strictly procedural. As the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took steps to investigate, no procedural failing exists. The Tribunal cannot review the substantive merits of the complaint. There is no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
  • The Applicant's cross-application to strike out the Respondent's strike out application is refused.