‘To many, ouster clauses represent a conflict between, on the one hand, the will of a sovereign Parliament and, on the other, the rule of law’s demands that public bodies act within the limits of their powers. The common law has traditionally sought to interpret ouster clauses restrictively, employing reasoning articulated classically (but far from the first time) in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 and continued more recently in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22. That reasoning provides that ouster clauses do not apply where a public body has acted outside its jurisdiction: the “decision”, “determination”, etc (in the language of the clause) is null and void, such that there is nothing in law to which the clause might attach. The courts are thus able to safeguard the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court while still claiming to pay due respect to Parliament’s decrees.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 5th July 2023

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org