Saim Köksal v Information Commissioner

Saim Köksal v Information Commissioner

The Tribunal extended time for the respondent's late response in the interests of the overriding objective. The applicant's application was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success: the Tribunal cannot grant the substantive relief sought, as its jurisdiction under s.166 is limited to procedural failings by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner had complied with his obligations.

Parties
Applicant: Saim Köksal; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Tribunal Application / Decision on Rule 4(3) Application and Strike Out
Outcome
Application struck out; time for response extended
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request, Tribunal Procedure, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Strike Out Applications
Data Protection Administrative Law Subject Access Request Tribunal Procedure Jurisdiction of Tribunal Strike Out Applications

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saim Köksal

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Tribunal Application / Decision on Rule 4(3) Application and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the respondent's late response under rule 23
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's application under s.166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 has a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal extended time for the respondent's late response in the interests of the overriding objective. The applicant's application was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success: the Tribunal cannot grant the substantive relief sought, as its jurisdiction under s.166 is limited to procedural failings by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner had complied with his obligations.

Court Disposition

Application struck out; time for response extended

Orders

  • Time for providing a Response is retrospectively extended such that it was received in time.
  • The applicant’s application under s.166 of the Data Protection Act 2018 is struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.