Topic

‘Ouster Clauses, Separation of Powers and the Intention of Parliament: From Anisminic to Privacy International’

Author/Academic

Robert Craig

Viewpoint

This article reflects on the constitutional implications of ouster clauses, especially regarding separation of powers. Discusses the approach adopted in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (HL), the case’s subsequent application, and the impact of R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (CA). Robert Craig considers whether a distinction should be drawn between clauses addressed to judicial and administrative bodies.

Source

[2018] Public Law 570–584

Topic

‘The Outer Limits of English Judicial Review’

Author/Academic

Neil Duxbury

Viewpoint

This article considers the reasons for restricting the Administrative Court’s judicial review powers to public law concerns, and why a measure of uncertainty over the outer limits of judicial review’s supervisory jurisdiction is likely to remain. It examines possible arguments to support the restriction based on issues of jurisdiction, the monopoly powers test, public interest, the operation of the rule of law, and the available remedies.

Source

[2017] Public Law 235–248

Topic

‘Judicious Review: The Constitutional Practice of the UK Supreme Court’

Author/Academic

Jo Eric Khushal Murkens

Viewpoint

This article analyses the form of constitutional review exercised by the UK Supreme Court Justices, and assesses its democratic legitimacy. It goes on to discuss the conditions under which judicial review is legitimate. It identifies the principles that the Justices may balance against that of legislative intent.

Source

(2018) 77 Cambridge Law Journal 349–374

Topic

‘Functions of a Public Nature under the Human Rights Act’

Author/Academic

Dawn Oliver

Viewpoint

Considers the scope of s 6(3)(b) Human Rights Act 1998, which allows judicial review of ‘functions of a public nature’ if exercised incompatibly with the ECHR.

Source

[2004] Public Law 329–351

Topic

‘The Question of What Constitutes a Public Body for the Purposes of Judicial Review’

Author/Academic

Michael J Beloff

Viewpoint

Reviews the Jockey Club cases and addresses the debate concerning the reviewability of sports organizations. Examines the options open to the House of Lords if it ever has to decide whether such bodies should be open to judicial review.

Source

(2006) 1 (Feb) International Sports Law Review 1–3