Seaman v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 628 (GRC) (04 June 2025)

Seaman v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 628 (GRC) (04 June 2025)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the substantive outcome of the applicant's complaint. The Information Commissioner provided a response and outcome, and there was no procedural failing. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect of the case succeeding.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 628 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: Enzo Seaman; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Decision Without Hearing
Outcome
Struck out
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Procedural Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Data Retention Policies, Right to Erasure
Data Protection Administrative Law Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Procedural Jurisdiction of Tribunal Data Retention Policies Right to Erasure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enzo Seaman

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Information Rights Appeal / Strike Out Decision Without Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the substantive outcome of a complaint to the Information Commissioner
  2. 2 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate procedural steps in handling the applicant's complaint

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction under section 166 DPA 2018 to consider the substantive outcome of the applicant's complaint. The Information Commissioner provided a response and outcome, and there was no procedural failing. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect of the 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 any part of it, succeeding.