Upper Tribunal rejects attack on privacy jurisprudence

Adam Temple acted for the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) in the Upper Tribunal in Garipolgu v The Financial Conduct Authority [2026] UKUT 121 (TCC). The Tribunal’s decision is dated 8 October 2025, but has only now been published.

In two tribunal references, both of which related to the actions of the first applicant, the applicants argued that FCA Decision Notices should not to be published because of likely damage to the first applicant’s reputation and because it was said that publication would undermine the purpose of the reference of proceedings. The first applicant did not challenge the FCA’s conclusion that he was not fit and proper, but he challenged the FCA’s prohibition order.

The Tribunal dismissed the first applicant’s privacy application and discharged a previous non-publication order relating to the second applicant.

In so doing, the Tribunal reaffirmed the presumption in favour of publication of FCA Decision Notices and the principle of open justice. The Tribunal rejected a wide‑ranging challenge to the Upper Tribunal’s established privacy jurisprudence. In particular, the applicants argued that publication should be approached on the same basis interim relief under American Cyanamid principles, and that open justice is not engaged in respect of decision notices connected with Tribunal proceedings. These arguments were rejected.

The Tribunal held that open justice does apply. Decision Notices enable a proper understanding of Tribunal proceedings and the starting point is not neutral: the scales are weighted in favour of publication.

The full judgment is available here.

Since judgment was handed down, the FCA has issued a Final Notice in respect of the first applicant, which is the subject of the FCA’s press release here.