![[2025] UKUT 74 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Analysis and conclusion
Analysis and conclusion
I prefer the submissions of the Commissioner for the reasons he gives. I add that the mere fact that the 7 February 2023 email suggests that the “lessons learned” could be communicated to the appellant does not mean that the Commissioner was required to do so, or that it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to order him to do so as the outcome to a section 166 application.
Ground 4 is therefore dismissed.
- Heading
- (As amended under Rule 42) Introduction
- Background
- The proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision
- The law
- Case law in relation to section 166 of the DPA 2018
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- The parties’ submissions
- Ground 2: The Tribunal erred by ruling that the Commissioner was not biased and by reaching the wrong conclusions about the Commissioner’s motives, and their consequences
- Analysis and conclusions: (i) the apparent bias argument
- My concerns about the Tribunal’s self-directions as to the law
- The approach the First-tier Tribunal should take to section 166 applications where the Commissioner has been asked to investigate a complaint against the ICO
- The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in this case
- Ground 3 : The Tribunal erred by failing to uphold the duty of candour
- Analysis and conclusions
- Ground 4: The First-tier Tribunal erred in relation to what was the outcome of the appellant’s complaints
- Analysis and conclusion
- Ground 5: The First-tier Tribunal failed to uphold the overriding objective
- Ground 1: The First-tier Tribunal has provided inadequate reasons for its decision
- The shortcomings in the Commissioner’s handling of the complaints and why they do not mean this appeal succeeds
- Conclusions