{"id":562666,"date":"2026-04-14T23:48:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:48:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T23:48:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:48:41","slug":"jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/","title":{"rendered":"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>Background 2. This decision relates to the applicant\u2019s application for an order pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA). 3. The Commissioner applied to strike out the application pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) and\/or 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Procedure Rules) because the tribunal has no jurisdiction and\/or because the application has no realistic prospect of succeeding. 4. The applicant made a subject access request on 12 November 2024 to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC). On 1 May 2025 she made a complaint to the Information Commissioner (the Commissioner) about GGC\u2019s response, stating that it had been overdue since 12 December 2024. The complaint was assigned to a case officer. 5. On 12 December 2025 the case officer wrote to the applicant and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It was stated that a substantive response would be provided once the case officer had reviewed the information provided. 6. The case officer issued an outcome on 22 December 2025. It was explained that the Commissioner could only investigate potential breaches of data protection law and that it could not consider requests made under the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011. The case officer noted that GGC had responded to the applicant\u2019s request and had provided her records, albeit that the applicant considered some were missing as set out in her letters to GGC dared 21 July 2025 and 1 August 2025. The case officer advised that it was unclear whether GGC had considered her request as a subject access request or whether information had been provided via alternative procedures. 7. The case officer advised that if the applicant\u2019s request was dealt with as a subject access request and she maintained that GGC had failed to fully comply with that request, she should provide copies of all relevant correspondence, including covering letters or emails and GGC\u2019s letter dated 22 July 2025 as referred to in an email dated 31 July 2025. It was noted that the right of access did not require GGC to create new information and so her request for answers to questions in previous correspondence or requests for GGC to substantiate statements made in her records would fall outside the scope of a subject access request. The applicant was advised to provide GGC of details and evidence relating to any specific inaccuracies in her personal data it held. 8. Finally, the outcome advised the applicant that her reliance on paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the DPA was misplaced and that any concerns GGC had failed to comply with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 fell outside the Commissioner\u2019s remit. 9. The case officer indicated that the applicant\u2019s complaint would be considered further if she provided the requested information. 10. In her application to this tribunal, the applicant sought the following: I respectfully request that the Tribunal exercise its powers under section 166 DPA 2018 and order the Information Commissioner to take appropriate steps to progress and properly determine my complaint. This includes: 1. Acknowledging and accepting my complaint as valid under the UK GDPR. 2. Taking appropriate investigative steps, including assessing the issues raised and seeking information from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. 3. Considering the personal and special category health-data issues set out in my complaint. 4. Applying the rights and principles under Articles 12, 15, and 16 UK GDPR. 5. Considering the relevance of Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph 5(3) DPA 2018, given that I need the withheld information to understand, exercise, or defend my legal rights. 6. Providing me with a lawful, reasoned outcome within a specified period. 7. Informing me of the progress of the complaint within a set timeframe. These steps are necessary to ensure the ICO fulfils its statutory duties and that I can exercise my data protection rights meaningfully. 11. The applicant\u2019s application to this tribunal for an order under section 166(2) of the DPA is dated 4 December 2025. Commissioner\u2019s application to strike out 12. The Commissioner has given reasons in his response given under rule 23 of the Procedure Rules for his application for the proceedings to be struck out rule 8(2)(a) and\/or rule 8(3)(c) of the Procedure Rules on the basis that the tribunal has no jurisdiction and\/or the application has no reasonable prospect of success. 13. The Commissioner accepts that there was a delay in communicating with the applicant regarding her complaint. He submits however that he took appropriate steps to investigate and respond to the compliant and provided an outcome on 22 December 2025. 14. The Commissioner submits that he has taken steps to comply with the procedural requirements of section 166(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and that there is no basis on which the tribunal can make an order under section 166(2). The applicant\u2019s response 15. In directions issued on 10 December 2025, the applicant was directed as follows: b. No later than 14 days after that, the Applicant may: i. Provide a rule 24 Reply; ii. Make any application (to which the Commissioner may respond within 7 days); iii. Make representations in response to any application made by the Commissioner. 3. After the above time limits expire, the Tribunal will: a. If these proceedings were not started at the right time, decide what to do about it (see rule 22(6)(f)). b. Decide any application made by a party. c. Make any necessary case management directions to progress the proceedings 16. There was no evidence of any response received from the applicant in the papers before me. I was satisfied that she had been provided with an opportunity to respond to the application to strike the proceedings out and had chosen not to do so. The law 17. A summary of the relevant law and principles is as follows: (i) Section 165 of the DPA provides for a an individual to complain to the Commissioner if they consider that there is an infringement of the UK GDPR and or Parts 3 or 4 of the DPA. (ii) Section 165(4) sets out the steps the Commissioner must take if he receives a complaint under subsection (2). They include investigating the complaint; informing the complainant about progress of the complaint and informing them of the outcome of the complaint. (iii) Section 166 of the DPA provides for an individual to make an application to the First-tier Tribunal for an order requiring the Commissioner to take appropriate steps. Subsection (1) sets out the circumstances in which the tribunal may make an order; and subsection (2) sets out the orders the tribunal may make. (iv) An application under section 166 is not concerned with the merits of the relevant complaint and does not provide a right of challenge to the substantive outcome of the Commissioner\u2019s investigation into the complaint. (v) The phrase \u2018appropriate steps to respond to the complaint\u2019 required by section 166(1) means simply that. The Commissioner is not required to reach an appropriate outcome or to resolve the complaint, merely to respond to it. (vi) The Commissioner has broad discretion as to how he investigates complaints and is the expert regulator. The tribunal does not have an oversight role over the Commissioner\u2019s exercise of his functions or his internal processes. The Commissioner\u2019s view carries weight but is not necessarily determinative. (vii) It is for the tribunal to decide, applying an objective test, if an \u2018appropriate step\u2019 has been omitted, but in practice that is unlikely to be the case where an outcome has been issued. That is because section 166 is procedural and cannot be used effectively as a back door route to obtaining a remedy that should be pursued by making a claim against the data controller or by judicial review of the Commissioner. Consideration 18. I was satisfied that I could determine the application for strike out without a hearing, as neither party had objected to that and because I had the benefit of written submissions from both parties. 19. The applicant\u2019s application to this tribunal was made before the Commissioner had issued his outcome. At the time the application was lodged, I am satisfied that the Commissioner had not taken appropriate steps to respond to the complaint or inform the applicant of the outcome of her complaint. 20. The Commissioner provided the applicant with an update on her complaint on 12 December 2025 and on 22 December 2025, provided her with the substantive outcome. I am satisfied that the Commissioner has taken appropriate steps to respond to the applicant\u2019s complaint and to inform her of the outcome of her complaint. 21. At the time the applicant lodged her application to the tribunal it had jurisdiction because the Commissioner had not taken appropriate steps to respond to the complaint or to inform the applicant of the outcome of the complaint. However, I am satisfied that that there is now no procedural failing by the Commissioner and no order pursuant to section 166(2) which the tribunal has the power to grant. For those reasons, I find that the application has no reasonable prospect of success. 22. The application is struck out pursuant to rule 8(3)(c) of the Procedure Rules and is at an end. SignedJ K SwaneyDate: 6 March 2026 Judge J K Swaney Judge of the First-tier Tribunal<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ukftt\/grc\/2026\/375\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Background 2. This decision relates to the applicant\u2019s application for an order pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA). 3. The Commissioner applied to strike out the application pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) and\/or 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Procedure Rules) because the tribunal has no jurisdiction and\/or&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7609],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[7875,7919,7694,7874,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562666","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-information-rights","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-application","kji_keyword-commissioner","kji_keyword-complaint","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Background 2. This decision relates to the applicant\u2019s application for an order pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA). 3. The Commissioner applied to strike out the application pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) and\/or 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Procedure Rules) because the tribunal has no jurisdiction and\/or...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\",\"name\":\"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T21:48:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner","og_description":"Background 2. This decision relates to the applicant\u2019s application for an order pursuant to section 166(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the DPA). 3. The Commissioner applied to strike out the application pursuant to rule 8(2)(a) and\/or 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Procedure Rules) because the tribunal has no jurisdiction and\/or...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"7 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/","name":"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T21:48:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jennifer-johnston-v-the-information-commissioner\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Jennifer Johnston v The Information Commissioner"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/562666","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562666"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}