## Facts

- The case concerned a challenge by Oceana to an Upper Tribunal decision relating to fishing quotas.
- Oceana alleged that the Upper Tribunal misapplied EU law and improperly evaluated key evidence.
- The claim was considered by the High Court under the legal framework established by Cart and Others v Upper Tribunal.
- Oceana contended that the Upper Tribunal erred in its approach to both legal interpretation and factual review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Upper Tribunal made a legal error in its decision.
2. Whether the Upper Tribunal failed to act within its jurisdiction.
3. Whether there were breaches of fundamental fairness in the process conducted by the Upper Tribunal.

## Decision

- The High Court held that no legal error was made by the Upper Tribunal.
- It found that differences in the interpretation of legal provisions do not constitute reviewable legal errors.
- The review of evidence by the Upper Tribunal was held to have complied with lawful standards and proper processes.
- The High Court reaffirmed the restricted grounds for judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions under the Cart jurisdiction.
- The claim was dismissed, emphasizing the exceptional nature of successful challenges.

## Legal Principles

- The Cart jurisdiction restricts judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions to instances where a clear legal error, jurisdictional overreach, or breach of fundamental process fairness is shown.
- Mere disagreement with the Tribunal’s legal reasoning or factual findings does not amount to a legal error.
- To establish unfairness, a claimant must demonstrate a substantial breach of fundamental process rights, not merely dissatisfaction with the decision.
- The specialist role of the Upper Tribunal is to be respected, and repetitive or weak challenges are discouraged.

## Conclusion

The High Court in R (Oceana) v Upper Tribunal reaffirmed the limited scope for judicial review of Upper Tribunal decisions under the Cart principles, requiring clear legal errors or fundamental process failings for intervention, and maintaining deference to the tribunal’s specialist knowledge.

R (Oceana) v Upper Tribunal [2023] EWHC 791 (Admin)