Policy background Judicial Review Cart Judicial Reviews (Cart JRs)
Cart JRs are applications for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (the UT) to refuse permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (the FtT).
	This type of judicial review arose from the 2011 decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (the UKSC) in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal; R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 28. These two English cases were heard alongside a Scottish case raising the same issues, judgment for which was given separately (Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29). All three cases were brought by claimants who had failed in their initial appeals to the FtT and were then refused permission to appeal to the UT – first by the FtT, and then by the UT itself.
	In the absence of any further route of appeal against the UT’s decision the claimants in the Cart cases asked the High Court (and the Court of Session, in Eba) to judicially review the UT’s refusal of permission to appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court (and the Court of Session) retained a supervisory jurisdiction over such matters, establishing the process for what became known as Cart JRs.
	Since Cart JRs came into existence the number of challenges via this route is high, and the success rate is low. The IRAL panel assessed this success rate as just 0.22%. Having investigated this further the Government believes that the success rate is slightly higher and estimates it is around 3%. This remains lower than in most other types of judicial review.