header-logo header-logo

04 August 2023
Issue: 8036 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Judicial review , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Lunges, parries & the ouster clause

132786
The government now has a template for ousting judicial review: Nick Wrightson assesses how it might be used in practice
  • ‘Ouster clauses’ prevent judicial review challenges targeting particular decisions by public bodies.
  • The recent Oceana case provides proof of concept for a particular form of ouster clause, and the government is already identifying other opportunities to exclude judicial review using this ‘template’.
  • There needs to be an appropriate political price for enacting ouster clauses. If they are routinised and courts are left to hold the line, it will be a clear sign of impending constitutional crisis.

Ouster clauses are provisions inserted into legislation to prevent judicial review challenges that target particular decisions by public bodies. They exclude the common law supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. The basis for them is that, under our constitution, Acts of Parliament are supreme and Parliament can curtail the jurisdiction of the courts if it so chooses.

How do the courts respond to ouster clauses?

The courts have three options when confronted

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll