The Supreme Court has granted Peter Nowak leave to appeal a Court of Appeal decision in his data protection dispute, on 22 October 2015.
Mr Nowak represents himself and wants to appeal the whole of the Court of Appeal's decision, delivered in April 2015.
He was an unsuccessful candidate in an exam set by Chartered Accountants Ireland in October 2009.
Instead of using the body's appeal process, he asked it to release his personal data, including his exam script.
It released a considerable amount of data but refused the script, saying it was outside the Data Protection Acts.
Mr Nowak complained to the Data Protection Commissioner, who found the script was not personal data and would not investigate.
She said no appeal lay, because with no investigation there was no decision under section 10 of the Act.
The Circuit Court agreed that no appeal lay, but also considered the main issue and upheld the Commissioner's decision.
The High Court took the same approach, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's reasoning.
All of the courts accepted that the Commissioner's determination could be challenged by judicial review, but not by the statutory appeal.
Mr Nowak argues that whether an appeal lies is a matter of public importance, because it concerns important legislation.
He says the Act must be read consistently with an EU directive, which he argues requires an appeals route to the courts.
He also says the script contains his handwriting and thought process, and could identify him through his exam number.
The Supreme Court rejected his claim that the Court of Appeal judges seemed biased, saying he gave no basis for it.
It accepted there is an arguable ground on the correct interpretation of the Data Protection Acts 1988 to 2003.
It said the point is of general public importance, because it affects the public's right to appeal Commissioner decisions.
It also held that it is in the interests of justice for him to argue the Commissioner's substantive decision was wrong.
Otherwise, the appeal would be limited to the procedural issue.
Leave was granted on two grounds. The first is that the Court of Appeal erred in holding he could not appeal to the Circuit Court.
The second is that it erred in holding the Commissioner was entitled to conclude the script was not personal data.