Khadyka v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1143 (GRC) (01 October 2025)

Khadyka v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1143 (GRC) (01 October 2025)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order further progression of the complaint under section 166 DPA 2018 because the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took appropriate procedural steps; the remedies sought by the Applicant are not within the Tribunal's powers.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1143 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: Andrey Khadyka; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 October 2025
Procedural Posture
First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights / Strike Out Application Decided Without a Hearing
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction and no reasonable prospect of success.
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Remedies, ICO Complaint Handling
Data Protection Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Jurisdiction of Tribunal Procedural Remedies 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrey Khadyka

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights / Strike Out Application Decided Without a Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 166(2) DPA 2018 to order the Information Commissioner to progress the Applicant's complaint
  2. 2 Whether there is any reasonable prospect of the application succeeding
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can award compensation or order compliance under section 167 DPA 2018

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order further progression of the complaint under section 166 DPA 2018 because the Information Commissioner provided an outcome and took appropriate procedural steps; the remedies sought by the Applicant are not within the Tribunal's powers.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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