NCN: [2026] UKFTT 00961 (GRC) Case No. FT/EA/2026/0194/GDPR | |
 | In the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights |
Before: Judge Sanger
Appellant: Rita Kodjo-Agamatey
Respondent: The Information Commissioner
DECISION
The appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. The application has no real prospect of success.
REASONS
An appeal was filed under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 on 26th April 2026. The appeal was made on form GRC1.
The original appeal form seeks the following outcomes:
Declaration of ICO failings;
Completion of a proper investigation;
Clear my name: a clear statement that I did nothing wrong.
On 16th June 2026 the Respondent provided his response. In it, he made these principal submissions:
the appeal was filed using the incorrect form. It should have been made on form GRC3. Accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it, pursuant to Rule 8(2)(a);
there is no reasonable prospect of success because an outcome was provided to the Appellant on 20th April 2026;
there is no reasonable prospect of success because the remedy sought by the Appellant is not one which it is open to the Tribunal to make;
there is no reasonable prospect of success because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider a procedural failure by the Respondent and in this case the Appellant seeks to challenge the substantive outcome.
On 21st June 2026 the Appellant provided a response to the Respondent’s application to strike out the matter. In it she argued that:
Her former employer, the party against whom she had complained, had not complied with its notification requirements under articles 33 and 34 UKGDPR and this was not dealt with by the IC in his response;
Her former employer had breached many of the principles of Article 5 UKGDPR and she had the right to complain about this to the IC;
The IC did not fully investigate all her complaints.
As is required by Rule 8(4), I am satisfied that the Appellant has had fair notice of the application and was made aware of the requirement to respond to it. She has provided a response under Rule 24. This response does not directly address the application to strike out.
I make no findings regarding the appeal having been submitted on the incorrect form. Had my findings been otherwise in respect of the strike out application I might have done so but I see no need.
Rule 8(2)(a) provides that the Tribunal must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them.
In this case, I cannot see how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 for these reasons:
the remedy sought is not one which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal;
the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in a case in which an outcome has already been provided.
The decision is made in accordance with the overriding objective and Rule 8(2)(a).
Signed: Judge Sanger
Date: 25th June 2026