![[2025] UKUT 74 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The parties’ submissions
The parties’ submissions
In advance of the oral hearing, the appellant had set out his grounds of appeal in in his application for permission to appeal. The Commissioner provided a response to the appeal on 8 August 2024, to which the appellant provided a reply on 9 September 2024 and an amended reply on 7 October 2024. At the hearing, the parties made oral submissions, with the appellant also making oral submissions in reply. During the course of the hearing, I identified two matters relating to what I have now identified in my judgment above as being the Commissioner’s apparent failure to explain why he considered the ICO had complied with the UK GDPR despite the points made in the appellant’s email of 14 December 2022. The parties provided further submissions in response to my directions following the hearing. I have taken full account of all their submissions, although in my discussion and conclusions below I only set out such of their submissions as it has been necessary to address in order to determine the appeal.
The grounds of appeal: discussion and conclusions
There are five grounds of appeal. Ground 1 is a reasons challenge. It is convenient to deal with that ground last.
- 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