I am a bit delayed in posting this, but I recently represented a client in a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal based on the adequacy of the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health)'s written reasons. It’s not a particularly exciting case (nor a lengthy Decision to read) but a reminder that the FTT should be challenged when it does not explain it’s decision sufficiently. MK v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2025] MHLO 17 (UT) - Mental Health Law Online.
I’ve also recently represented another client in a successful appeal based on inadequate reasons that didn’t get as far as the UT as the FTT allowed it. I have a further three appeals outstanding, two of which are also based on inadequate reasons.
Is the quality of FTT-MH decisions declining or am I just more confident in appealing them (or maybe less tolerant in what I assess as adequate!)?
I have just had two overturned at FTT after a long spell when they routinely refused appeals so I wonder if they are becoming more willing to overturn them at FTT.
This is often cited in decisions as a reason for them being short, but they still need to be adequate. I read a fairly short decision recently that was appropriately succinct and a really good example of adequacy without length, so it can be done.