Yang v Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 683 (GRC) (17 August 2023)

Yang v Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 683 (GRC) (17 August 2023)

The Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166 DPA is limited to procedural issues; the Applicant's challenge concerns the substantive outcome, which is outside the Tribunal's powers. No procedural error was found in the Commissioner's handling of the complaint, and there is no reasonable prospect of the case succeeding.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 683 (GRC)
Parties
Applicant: Liying Yang; Respondent: Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Data Protection Tribunal Appeal / Strike Out Application; Final Decision
Outcome
Proceedings struck out; application for anonymity refused.
Legal Topics
Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018, Procedural Remedies, Anonymity Applications
Data Protection Information Rights Section 166 Data Protection Act 2018 Procedural Remedies Anonymity Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liying Yang

Applicant

Information Commissioner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Data Protection Tribunal Appeal / Strike Out Application; Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the remedies sought under section 166 DPA
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner committed a procedural error in handling the complaint
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to anonymity

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 166 DPA is limited to procedural issues; the Applicant's challenge concerns the substantive outcome, which is outside the Tribunal's powers. No procedural error was found in the Commissioner's handling of the complaint, and there is no reasonable prospect of the case succeeding.

Court Disposition

Proceedings struck out; application for anonymity refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) for lack of reasonable prospect of success.
  • Personal and private documents to be kept confidential under Rule 14(6), not disclosed or published.