Gohar Naz v The Information Commissioner

Gohar Naz v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the orders sought as the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took appropriate procedural steps; section 166 DPA 2018 does not permit review of substantive outcomes or merits, only procedural compliance.

Parties
Applicant: Gohar Naz; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Data Subject Access Request, Procedural Jurisdiction, Regulatory Action Policy, Section 166 DPA 2018
Data Protection Administrative Law Data Subject Access Request Procedural Jurisdiction Regulatory Action Policy Section 166 DPA 2018

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

Gohar Naz

Applicant

The Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the procedural orders sought under section 166 DPA 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate procedural steps in response to the complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the orders sought as the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took appropriate procedural steps; section 166 DPA 2018 does not permit review of substantive outcomes or merits, only procedural compliance.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(a).