James Kelsall v The Information Commissioner

James Kelsall v The Information Commissioner

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166(2) DPA 2018 because the Information Commissioner provided an outcome to the complaint and took appropriate procedural steps. Section 166 is limited to procedural failings, not substantive outcomes, and there are no further appropriate steps required. The application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant: James Kelsall; Respondent: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
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
Subject Access Request, Procedural Jurisdiction, Complaint Handling, Tribunal Powers
Data Protection Information Rights Subject Access Request Procedural Jurisdiction Complaint Handling 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kelsall

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 under section 166(2) DPA 2018 to progress the Applicant's complaint
  2. 2 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate procedural steps under section 166(1) DPA 2018
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant can challenge the substantive outcome of the complaint under section 166 DPA 2018

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166(2) DPA 2018 because the Information Commissioner provided an outcome to the complaint and took appropriate procedural steps. Section 166 is limited to procedural failings, not substantive outcomes, and there are no further appropriate steps required. The application is struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Application is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it.
  • The Application is struck out under Rule 8(3)(a) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.