Ahmad v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1128 (GRC) (24 September 2025)

Ahmad v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1128 (GRC) (24 September 2025)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA to consider the merits or substantive outcome of the Applicant's complaint; the Applicant's claims relate to the adequacy of the investigation and outcome, not to procedural failings. There is no reasonable prospect of success and the proceedings must be struck out.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1128 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: Adeel Ahmad; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Struck out
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Remedies, Subject Access Request, ICO Complaint Handling
Data Protection Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Remedies Subject Access Request ICO Complaint Handling

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adeel Ahmad

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 166 DPA to order the Commissioner to reopen an investigation after an outcome has been provided
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's complaints relate to procedural failings or the merits of the Commissioner's investigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA to consider the merits or substantive outcome of the Applicant's complaint; the Applicant's claims relate to the adequacy of the investigation and outcome, not to procedural failings. There is no reasonable prospect of success and the proceedings must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Struck out

Orders

  • The proceedings are struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of the Applicant's case, or part of it, succeeding.