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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll