Chiadi Ojih v The Information Commissioner

By directions dated 7 May 2026 Judge Heald directed the Appellant to make representations as to why the appeal should not be struck out on the basis that, in summary, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it and/or that it has no reasonable prospect of success. This was due to there being evidence which indicates that no complaint has been made to the Commissioner.

Judge Heald’s directions set out the background in more detail.

The Appellant responded by email on 8 May 2026, saying that he had submitted a complaint intended for the Commissioner on 8 February 2026, and providing further background information. The Appellant did not at that time provide a copy of that complaint. I note that the Appellant’s initial email to the Tribunal in this matter, which was dated 8 February 2026, was addressed to the Information Commissioner’s Office, but was not sent to them.

As noted by Judge Heald at [3] in the directions dated 7 May 2026, the Tribunal can only consider an application under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 if there has been a complaint to the Commissioner. On the evidence, no such complaint has been made by the Appellant.

The Appellant makes a number of representations in the email of 8 May 2026 regarding why the appeal should not, in the Appellant’s view, be struck out. Although the Appellant appears to have thought this through carefully, and there is no suggestion of bad faith on the part of the Appellant, in the absence of a complaint to the Commissioner the Tribunal cannot consider an application under s166. This condition is set out in primary legislation, and the Tribunal has no discretion to disregard it.

Accordingly, I find that this application has no reasonable prospect of success and that it is appropriate that it is struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c).

It is not necessary to go on to consider the merits of the appeal.