# Case (Open justice). Re I (publication of decision) \[2026\] MHLO 2 (FTT)

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-open-justice-re-i-publication-of-decision-2026-mhlo-2-ftt/6156>\
**Category:** MHLO updates\
**Created:** [24 September 2026 11:09 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-open-justice-re-i-publication-of-decision-2026-mhlo-2-ftt/6156 "2026-09-24T11:09:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MHLO](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/mhlo/32/24_2.png) [@MHLO](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/MHLO)\
**Post date:** [24 September 2026 11:09 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/case-open-justice-re-i-publication-of-decision-2026-mhlo-2-ftt/6156/1 "2026-09-24T11:09:00Z")

</div>

— There were no exceptional circumstances and so publication of the FTT’s review decision would be proportionate. In this case: (a) the review decision “provides a clear explanation as to the legal principles (relating to adequacy of reasons) applied”; (b) it was worthy of public interest because it would “enable the reader to have insight into the work of the Tribunal including the permission to appeal process”; (c) the redacted version contained no identifying information so maintains the patient’s privacy; and (d) the patient wanted publication so, in any event, had waived the right to privacy.

* * *
Full details available at: [https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re\_I\_(publication\_of\_decision)\_(2026)\_MHLO\_2\_(FTT)?id=240926-1109](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_I_(publication_of_decision)_(2026)_MHLO_2_(FTT)?id=240926-1109)