Panossian v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1470 (GRC) (03 December 2025)

Panossian v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1470 (GRC) (03 December 2025)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order under section 166(2) DPA 2018 once the Commissioner has provided an outcome to the complaint; section 166 is limited to procedural failings, not the merits of the complaint. As the Commissioner provided an outcome, there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant's case succeeding.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1470 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: Aram Panossian; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 December 2025
Procedural Posture
First Tier Tribunal (general Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights / Strike Out Application Decided Without a Hearing
Outcome
Struck out
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Procedural Rights, Information Commissioner's Duties
Data Protection Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Tribunal Jurisdiction Procedural Rights Information Commissioner's Duties

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aram Panossian

Appellant

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 to make an order under section 166(2) DPA 2018 after the Commissioner has provided an outcome
  2. 2 Whether there is any reasonable prospect of the applicant's case succeeding under section 166(2) DPA 2018

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order under section 166(2) DPA 2018 once the Commissioner has provided an outcome to the complaint; section 166 is limited to procedural failings, not the merits of the complaint. As the Commissioner provided an outcome, there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant's case succeeding.

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.