Leigh Carrick-Moore v Information Commissioner
Background 1. By Notice of Appeal dated 05 December 2022 Leigh Carrick-Moore lodged proceedings with this Tribunal about the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) reference number IC-187086-B0B1. 2. The Notice of Appeal and supporting documents were sent to the ICO by email on 07 December 2022. 3. In a Response dated 05 January 2023, the ICO invited Ms Carrick-Moore to withdraw...
2 min de lecture · 355 mots
Background 1. By Notice of Appeal dated 05 December 2022 Leigh Carrick-Moore lodged proceedings with this Tribunal about the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) reference number IC-187086-B0B1. 2. The Notice of Appeal and supporting documents were sent to the ICO by email on 07 December 2022. 3. In a Response dated 05 January 2023, the ICO invited Ms Carrick-Moore to withdraw her appeal and, as an alternative, applied for the appeal to be struck out. 3 Annexes were attached to the ICO’s response. 4. The Tribunal, by email sent on 06 January 2023, invited Ms Carrick-Moore to make representations about the application to strike out. Such representations were due to be with the Tribunal by 20 January 2023, none had been received by 02 February 2023. The law 5. The Tribunal Procedure rules The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (SI 2010/43) as amended (“GRC Rules”) provide (as relevant): Striking out a party’s case 8. (1)… (2) … (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if— (a) … (b) … (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding. Consideration 6. The ICO’s response (which, it appears, is unchallenged by Ms Carrick-Moore is that, on or about 13 December 2022, Mr Carrick-Moore personally received from the Data Processor / Controller the information it held about her. The ICO also wrote to Ms Carrick-Moore to explain what they had done. Decision 7. It seems to me that there is no Order for the Tribunal to now make – the ICO has made such investigations at it needed to under the Data Protection Act 2018; it happens that they have enabled Ms Carrick-Moore to obtain the personal data that she wanted. 8. Therefore, there is, at the present time, no reasonable prospect of the Tribunal making an Order. The application is, pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) struck out. Signed District Judge Worth District Judge Worth, authorised to sit as a Tribunal Judge in the GRC, dated 06 March 2022
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...