![[2025] UKUT 74 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For all these reasons, I conclude that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal does not involve any material error of law. I dismiss the appeal.
Holly Stout
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 28 February 2025
Amended decision approved for re-issue on 23 April 2025 under Rule 42,
with minor amendments to paragraphs 10c., 33, 41, 76, 104 and 125
- 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