## Facts

- Mr. Cart’s appeal concerning his child’s special educational needs was rejected by the Upper Tribunal.
- He sought judicial review, alleging legal errors by the Upper Tribunal.
- The main focus was whether the Upper Tribunal, as designated a "superior court of record" by the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, should be exempt from judicial review except in limited circumstances, or remain subject to broader court oversight.
- Mr. Cart argued that restricting judicial review would undermine legal checks and the protection of fundamental rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the Upper Tribunal’s decisions should be largely exempt from judicial review by virtue of its status as a "superior court of record".
2. In what circumstances, if any, judicial review should be available against the Upper Tribunal.
3. How judicial oversight should balance administrative efficiency and the need for legal accountability of specialist tribunals.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court declined to grant total immunity from judicial review to the Upper Tribunal.
- Judicial review was confirmed as essential for maintaining legal oversight over tribunal decisions.
- The Court established that review of the Upper Tribunal’s decisions should occur only in specific, limited circumstances, notably where an "important point of principle or practice" is raised or some other compelling reason exists.
- The Court’s measured approach balanced the Tribunal’s specialist function with practical efficiency and individual rights protection.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review is a fundamental mechanism for ensuring administrative bodies operate within legal bounds.
- Even specialist tribunals, such as the Upper Tribunal, remain subject to judicial supervision to prevent legal errors and protect individual rights.
- The test for permitting judicial review in this context is whether the case involves an "important point of principle or practice" or another compelling justification for intervention.
- The Cart judgment influences the criteria for reviewing decisions of specialist tribunals, contributing to the structure and predictability of administrative law.
- The legal standard set out in Cart has since been shaped by subsequent cases relating to the oversight of specialist tribunals.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal affirmed that judicial review remains available for Upper Tribunal decisions only on significant legal grounds, maintaining oversight while respecting the Tribunal’s specialist knowledge and supporting administrative efficiency. This balance continues to shape the field of administrative justice and judicial scrutiny of specialist tribunals.

R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 AC 663