Kelsall v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1493 (GRC) (09 December 2025)
The Applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions requiring written representations, justifying strike out under Rule 8(3)(a).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] UKFTT 1493 (GRC)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Kelsall; Respondent: Information Commissioner
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 09 December 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Struck Out for Non Compliance
- Outcome
- Appeal struck out
- Legal Topics
- GDPR, Tribunal Procedure, Strike Out
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Kelsall
Applicant
Information Commissioner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Struck Out for Non Compliance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant complied with Tribunal directions
- 2 Whether grounds exist to strike out the Application
Ratio Decidendi
The Applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions requiring written representations, justifying strike out under Rule 8(3)(a).
Court Disposition
Appeal struck out
Orders
- The appeal is struck out under rule 8(3)(a) for non-compliance with a Tribunal direction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 1493 (GRC) Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0303/GDPR First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights Decided without a hearing Decision Given On: 9 December 2025 B e f o r e : JUDGE HARRIS ____________________ Between: JAMES KELSALL Applicant and INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondent ____________________ ____________________ HTML VERSION OF DECISION ____________________ Crown Copyright © Decision: The appeal is struck out under rule 8(3)(a) for non-compliance with a Tribunal direction. REASONS The Applicant made an application for an order to progress his complaint (the "Application") with the Information Commissioner by form GRC3 on 7 August 2025. Case Management Directions were issued by the Tribunal on 13 August 2025, requiring the Respondent to provide any response to the Application and/or to make any application within 28 days of those directions being sent to the parties (i.e. by 10 September 2025). The Applicant was required to provide any Rule 24 Reply and/or any written representations in response to any applications made by the Respondent within 14 days of any such response of application being submitted to the Tribunal. On 10 September 2025, the Respondent submitted an application to strike out the proceedings under Rule 8. The Applicant was therefore required to submit any written representations in response by 24 September 2025. The Applicant did not comply with this requirement. By Directions dated 16 October 2025 the Applicant was directed that he must provide written representations in response to the strike-out application by 31 October 2025. The Applicant was directed to note that failure to comply with this direction could lead to the Tribunal striking out his Application for failure to comply without further direction. The Appellant failed to comply with the direction dated 16 October 2025 and accordingly there are grounds to strike out the Application. Signed: Judge Harris Date: 4 December 2025 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII