"77. The Commissioner is plainly expected to bring specialist knowledge and expert judgment to bear in performing these functions. But as I have shown, there is nothing that spells out any duty to reach a conclusion on the merits of every complaint."
(d) Killocck where the UT held:-
"73...As the expert regulator, the Commissioner is in the best position to decide what investigations she should undertake into any particular issue, and how she should conduct those investigations. Such decisions will be informed not only by the nature of a complaint itself, but also by a range of other factors of which the Tribunal will have no or only second-hand knowledge, including, for example, (i) the Commissioner's regulatory priorities; (ii) other investigations that the Commissioner may have undertaken in the same subject area; (iii) the Commissioner's judgment on how to deploy her limited resources most efficiently and effectively. The effect of the other parties' submissions would be that the Tribunal would trespass upon the Commissioner's complex judgements about how best to balance the respective rights and interests of data subjects, controllers and processors in a wide variety of different circumstances"
and even though "84...In determining whether a step is appropriate, the Tribunal will decide the question of appropriateness for itself." the UT held:-
"85... in considering appropriateness, the Tribunal will be bound to take into consideration and give weight to the views of the Commissioner as an expert regulator.......It is nevertheless our view that, in the sphere of complaints, the Commissioner has the institutional competence and is in the best position to decide what investigations she should undertake into any particular issue, and how she should conduct those investigations....her decisions about these matters will be informed not only by the nature of the complaint itself but also by a range of other factors such as her own regulatory priorities, other investigations in the same subject area and her judgment on how to deploy her limited resources most effectively..."
DPA18 provides a remedy only if the Tribunal concludes that the IC has failed to take appropriate steps to respond to the complaint and/or failed to provide the complainant with an outcome of the complaint.
The Applicant accepts that an outcome was provided after the Application was issued. For the avoidance of doubt it is my view that the letter of 30 January 2026 did inform the Applicant of the outcome as required by section 165(4) DPA18 especially when viewed with the Response to the Application and the letter of 2 February 2026.
As regards "appropriate steps" I have considered the position of the parties, the relevant parts of DPA18 and the legal authorities noting that it can be appropriate for no steps to be taken. I have kept in mind the need to comply with rule 2 2009 Rules when considering the request to strike out the Application. I have taken note of the need for the Tribunal to consider objectively whether any steps (or no steps) were appropriate while having regard to and giving weight to the view of the IC as the expert regulator with discretion to deal with complaints.
For the purposes of a strikeout request I am satisfied on this basis that the limited steps taken were "appropriate" . I therefore do not consider this Application has a reasonable prospect of succeeding and it is struck out by rule 8(3)(c) 2009 Rules.