Here at Law Answered we’ve been hard at work updating all our guides to take account of changes in law and legal practice over the last year. We are in the process of releasing our new guides and hope that if your legal studies are ongoing and you’ve found our guides useful in the past you’ll take a look at our new editions.
We thought we might share with you some of the updates which have most interested, surprised and amused us.
Here’s a decision of the Supreme Court which gives us a bit of comfort that whatever the political turmoil in the country we still have a strong and working constitution. If you’ve studied Con and Ad or Public law you’ll probably remember Anisminic? Yes? It’s the case where the court managed to hold that a clause purporting to oust its jurisdiction didn’t actually have that effect.
You might remember having to distinguish Anisminic from Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal. In this later case the Court of Appeal did uphold the ouster clause. It was felt that the Court of Appeal’s confidence may have been based on the fact that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was largely composed of the judiciary! Well, distinguish no more. A panel of seven Supreme Court judges has found by majority that it’s jurisdiction has not been ousted by a pretty clear ouster clause:
“Except to such extent as the Secretary of State may…otherwise provide, determinations, awards, orders and other decisions of the Tribunal (including…as to jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court.”
Here’s are some of the trenchant remarks made by their lordships:
Lloyd-Jones LJ:
“It is a necessary corollary of the sovereignty of Parliament that there should exist an authoritative and independent body which can interpret, and mediate legislation made by Parliament.”
Carnworth LJ:
“I see a strong case for holding that, consistently with the rule of law, binding effect cannot be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to review a decision of an inferior court or tribunal, whether for excess or abuse of jurisdiction or error of law.”
As lawyers we’re pleased to see that the judiciary continues to be determined to ensure that the executive does not overreach itself. Let’s wait and see if there are any more interesting Con and Ad cases coming up soon. Watch this space!