Evans v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1057 (GRC) (09 September 2025)

Evans v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1057 (GRC) (09 September 2025)

The Commissioner took appropriate procedural steps, provided an outcome within statutory time limits, and exercised regulatory discretion as permitted by law. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under s.166(2) DPA 2018 is limited to procedural defects, not merits review. No procedural failing justifying an order was established.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 1057 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: John Evans; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Subject Access Request, Procedural Obligations of Regulator, Complaint Handling, UK GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018
Data Protection Information Rights Subject Access Request Procedural Obligations of Regulator Complaint Handling UK GDPR Data Protection Act 2018

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

John Evans

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.166(2) Data Protection Act 2018 / Final Judgment After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Information Commissioner failed to take appropriate steps to respond to a complaint under s.166(2) DPA 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner failed to inform the complainant of progress or outcome within statutory time limits
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner failed to inform the complainant of judicial remedy rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner took appropriate procedural steps, provided an outcome within statutory time limits, and exercised regulatory discretion as permitted by law. The Tribunal's jurisdiction under s.166(2) DPA 2018 is limited to procedural defects, not merits review. No procedural failing justifying an order was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed