Ian David Spencer v Information Commissioner

Ian David Spencer v Information Commissioner

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under section 166(2) DPA 2018 because an outcome was provided to the Applicant’s complaint and there are no further appropriate steps for the Respondent to take; the Application has no realistic prospect of success as the relief sought is outside the Tribunal’s powers.

Parties
Applicant: Ian David Spencer; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Striking Out Application; Final Determination
Outcome
Application struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no realistic prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request, Procedural Jurisdiction, Tribunal Powers
Data Protection Information Rights Subject Access Request Procedural Jurisdiction Tribunal 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian David Spencer

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Striking Out Application; Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the order sought under section 166(2) DPA 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent failed to take appropriate steps to respond to the Applicant's complaint
  3. 3 Whether there is a realistic prospect of the Application succeeding

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under section 166(2) DPA 2018 because an outcome was provided to the Applicant’s complaint and there are no further appropriate steps for the Respondent to take; the Application has no realistic prospect of success as the relief sought is outside the Tribunal’s powers.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c).