Christopher Stevens vs The Information Commissioner

This case concerned an application made by Christopher Stevens under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was struck out by the First-tier Tribunal.

TLDR:

• Christopher Stevens made an application under section 166 DPA 2018.
• The Information Commissioner sought to strike out the application under rule 8(3)(c).
• The Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out.

Christopher Stevens filed an application under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, alleging that his information rights were infringed. The Information Commissioner responded by applying to strike out the application under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, arguing that the remedies sought by Stevens were not within the Tribunal's power to grant.

The Commissioner had previously investigated Stevens' complaint and provided an outcome on 25 July 2023, followed by a case review on 12 September 2023. The Commissioner argued that if Stevens wished to seek an order of compliance against the Controller for breach of data rights, the appropriate route would be through separate civil proceedings in the County Court or High Court under section 167 of the DPA 2018.

Stevens' grounds of application included allegations that the Commissioner allowed LV to rely on exemptions under DPA or FOIA in a 'blanket fashion', failed to undertake a 'prejudice test' under section 43(2) of FOIA, and did not comply with the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal found that these grounds had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Tribunal emphasized that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the substantive conclusions of the Commissioner or to determine whether LV had complied with FOIA. It also stated that challenges to the lawfulness of the process by which the Commissioner reached his decision were matters for judicial review by the High Court, not the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the application did not fall within the narrow circumstances in which it might be able to make an order under section 166(2)(a) after an outcome had been provided. Consequently, the Tribunal struck out the application, noting that the appropriate route for Stevens to seek an order of compliance was through separate civil proceedings under section 167 of the DPA 2018.

For these reasons, the Tribunal decided to strike out the application.

Legal representatives: Christopher Stevens (Applicant), The Information Commissioner (Respondent)

Judicial Panel: Tribunal Judge Buckley

Case Citation Reference: [2024] UKFTT 448 (GRC)