DOCSLIB.ORG

Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48157-1 — Judicial Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48157-1 — Judicial Review Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48157-1 — Judicial Review of Administrative Action Across the Common Law World Edited by Swati Jhaveri , Michael Ramsden Index More Information Index AAA Investments (Pty) Ltd v. Micro Finance Regulatory Affirmation of Faith (Kalimah Shahadah), 246–248 Council, 189 Africa, South African administrative law influence in, Abdul Aziz Mohammad JCA, 243–246 179–181, 354 Aboriginal rights, in Canadian administrative law, 138 Ahmad, Kassim, 249–250 Act of 1706 (Scotland), 84–85 Ahmed, Farrah, 273–288, 356 adjectival law, English judicial review and, 35 Ahmed, Shahabuddin (Justice), 303 adjudication Ahmed and Others v. HM Treasury, 334 Administrative Procedure Act 1946 and, 134–136 Ahrons, Constance, 372 US bureaucracy and role of, 130–131 Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland, 262–263 Administration of Islamic Family Law (Malaysia), Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, 275–276, 239–240 284–286 Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Akech, Migai, 191–211, 354 of 1938 (UK), 206 Alex Malikha Wasubwa & 7 others v. Elias Nambkha Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (Australia), Wamita & 4 others, 206–207 312–313, 315–318 Ali, Imman (Justice), 304 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ambiguity principle (Cth) (ADJR) (Australia), 13–14, 314–315, 317–318, duality in judicial review and, 63, 68 319–320, 357 international human rights law and, 75–76 Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the New Zealand administrative law abandonment of, United States (Pound), 131–133 332–333 administrative law. See also judicial review; specific Anglo-Boer War of 1899–1902, 173 countries administrative law, e.g., Canadian Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921, 99–100 administrative law Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission. common law systems, comparative analysis, 4–5, See also Wednesbury principle 350–358, 371–373 Australian jurisdiciational error and, 316 constitutional entrenchment and, 14–16 Bangladesh judicial review and, 297–298, 305–306 constitutional foundations of, 13–14, 362–363 Canadian divergence from, 141–142 defined, 117–118 contested legacy of, 144–145 dualism in, 69–71, 350–351 English law and legacy of, 145 English vs. US jurisprudence, 117–137 Hong Kong judicial review and, 264–266 future research issues, 373 Israeli administrative law and, 164–165 international law and, 66–67, 75–76 judicial error and, 53–56, 58–59, 111–112 multiple legal orders and, 19–20 judicial rewiew and, 46–48 post-colonial evolution of, 360, 367–371 jurisdicational issues and, 134 substance-based judicial review and, 46–59, 350–351 Malaysian religious conversion cases and, 245 temporal aspects of, 361 New Zealand administrative law and, 343–344 trans-Atlantic scholarship concerning, 128–133 Singapore ouster clause enforceability and, transitional development and, 365–367 223–228 typology of systems, 21–23, 358–367 South African administrative law and, 188–189 administrative law judges (ALJs) (US), 126–127 ultra vires doctrine and, 49 Administrative Procedure Act 1946 (US), 22, 125, 130–131, Anwar Hossain Khan v. Speaker Jativa Sangsad 134–136, 352–353 (Parliament Boycott), 301–306 Administrative Review Council (Australia), 319–320 anxious scrutiny review, 64–65, 70–71 Administrator, Transvaal v. Traub, 188–189 Canadian administrative law and, 154 Advocate-General (South Africa), 175–176 Hong Kong judicial review and, 265–266 374 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48157-1 — Judicial Review of Administrative Action Across the Common Law World Edited by Swati Jhaveri , Michael Ramsden Index More Information Index 375 apartheid international instruments and, 267–268, 269–270 South African judicial review and, 175–176, 354 basic structure doctrine South African legal system and, 171–172, 174–177 Bangladesh administrative law and, 299, 304 Union of South Africa formation and, 173–174 Singapore statutory interpretation and, 229–230 arbitrariness doctrine, Indian administrative law and, Bastarache J, 142–144 273–274, 275–281, 283–286, 356 Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v. Minister of Environmental Asmabi J, 250 Affairs, 184–185 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Baxi, Upendra, 274–275, 286–287 Corporation, 141–142, 244–246. See also Wednesbury Baxter, L. G., 48–49, 175–176, 188–189 principle Beetz, Jean, 142 A. Taib v. Minister for Local Government, 202 Beg (Justice), 278 Attorney-General v. Ng Yuen Shiu, 256–258 Beinart, B., 174–177, 180–181 Attorney-General (NSW) v. Quin, 310, 315–318 Bejerano v. Minister of Police, 163 audi alteram partem, 103–104 Ben Gurion, David, 163 Australia Berman v. Minister of Interior, 165 common law in, 10–11 Bhagwati (Justice), 284–286 international-domestic law dualism in, 69–71 Bharat Bank Ltd Delhi v. The Employees of the Bharat jurisdiction in law of, 134 Bank Ltd Delhi, 244–246 ratification theory in legitimate expectations doc- Bhuwania, Anuj, 281–282 trine, 63 Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO) (Hong Kong), UK public law influence in, 310–311 258–261, 267–268, 270–271 Australian administrative law Bingham (Lord), 18–19, 62, 64–65, 75 constitutional entrenchment and, 13–16, 124, 309–326, Births and Deaths Registration Act (BDRA) (Malaysia), 362–363 251–253 natural justice and legitimate expectation and, Blackstone, William, 121–122, 128–131 321–325 Board of Education v. Rice, 188–189 overview of, 13–14, 357 Boddington v. British Transport Police, 189 public law and, 310–311, 312–313, 357 Boer republics, 173 rise of constitutional review and, 315–318 Bokhary (Justice), 269–270 statutory reform of, 314–315 Bradley, A. W., 89–90 Awami League (AL) (Bangladesh), 298–300 Brennan J, 315–318, 324 AXA General Insurance v. Lord Advocate, 89–90 Bridge (Lord), 63 British Mandate in Palestine, English law influence Baker v. Canada, 66–67, 75–76 during, 159–161 Baker v. Carr, 166–167 Brodie (Lord), 93–94 BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, 287 Browne-Wilkinson (Lord), 61 Bangalore Priinciples, 63, 68 Bryce, James, 128–131 Bangladesh Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home judicial review in, 17, 295–298 Department, 63, 358–359 transitional development in, 365–367 Bulk Gas Users Group v. Attorney-General, 343–344 Bangladesh administrative law, 289–306 bureaucracy colonization and, 289–291 in colonial Kenya, 194–198 decolonization and, 300–306 politicisation in US of, 127–128 historical development, 291–295, 302–306, 356–357 US administrative control of, 126–127, 135–136 jurisdictional reach and, 301–302 US scholarship concerning, 131–133 Bangladesh National Party, 298–300 Byrne v. Ireland, 104–105 Bangladesh v. Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui, 299, 304 bankruptcy legislation, English law and, 41–42 Calvin v. Carr, 343 Bankrupts Act of 1603 (UK), 41–42 Canada Barak, Aharon (Justice), 167–168 convergence of English and domestic law in, 147–155 Barak-Erez, Daphne, 159–170, 353–354, 363–365 divergence from English law in, 138–156 Barisan Nasional coalition (Malaysia), 238–240 international human rights law and domestic law in, Barrington J, 112–113 66–67 Barton-Prescott v. Director-General of Social Welfare, judicial reasoning in, 21 331–332 legal change in, 367 Basic Law (Hong Kong) Canadian administrative law Article 39, 258–261 Bangladesh and influence of, 304 Chinese power over, 258–261 convergence with English law in, 150–152, 353 continuity of, 255–261, 355–356 divergence from English law in, 141–142, 353 divergence from English law in, 266–271 evolution of, 138–156, 353 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48157-1 — Judicial Review of Administrative Action Across the Common Law World Edited by Swati Jhaveri , Michael Ramsden Index More Information 376 Index Canadian administrative law (cont.) South African legal system and, 171–173 future trends in, 153–155 US legal system in, 120–122 legal community criticism of, 145–147 Commentaries on the Laws of England (Blackstone), New Zealand administrative law and, 343 121–122, 128–131 Parliamentary sovereignty and, 75–76 Commissioner for Religious Affairs v. Tengku Mariam, substantive review in, 140–141, 145–147 248–250 Supreme Court of Canada complexity concerning, Commissioners of Sewers (UK), 41–42 152–153 commissions Canadian International Development Agency, 304 English administrative law and role of, 39–41 Canadian Union of Public Employees v. New Brunswick remedial powers of, 41–42 Liquor Corporation, 142–144 Commissions of Plantation of Kirks and Valuation of Cane, Peter, 9–11, 22, 31–32, 117–137, 312–313, 352–353 Teinds (Scotland), 84–85 caretaker government (Bangladesh), 298–300 common law Carnwath (Lord), 58–59, 155, 184–185 administrative law and framework of, 4–5, 350–358, Cart v. The Upper Tribunal, 53–56, 58, 155 371–373 case law volume, English judicial review and, 33–34, arbitrariness doctrine and, 284–286 35–36 Australian constitution and, 323–325 Centre for Public Law (University of Cambridge), 8 Australian judicial review and, 314–315 Certificate of Renunciation, Malaysian religious Bangladesh administrative law and, 291–295, 306 conversion and, 243–246 Bangladesh judicial review and, 295–298 certiorari, writ of comparative studies of, 5–11, 76–77, 350–358 Australian jurisdictional error and, 318–321 constitutionalised systems of, 21–23, 30–31 Bangladesh administrative law and, 293–295 constraint of public power and, 128–131 Canadian administrative law and, 139 courts vs. executive and, 16–17 case law volume, 33–34 cultures of development and, 365–367 in English law, 33–34, 35, 111–112, 119–120 diversity in, 11–12 in Scottish law, 87–88 dualism in English judicial review and, 65–71 Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board executive power and, 16–17 v. K Shyam Kumar, 277–278 future research issues, 373 Charter Holdings Ltd v. Commissioner of Inland government systems and, 10–11 Revenue, 339 Hong Kong colonial law and, 255 Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canada), 139 Hong Kong judicial review and, 267–268 Cheong Chun Yin v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 15. Judicial Review
    15. Judicial Review Contents Summary 413 A common law principle 414 Judicial review in Australia 416 Protections from statutory encroachment 417 Australian Constitution 417 Principle of legality 420 International law 422 Bills of rights 422 Justifications for limits on judicial review 422 Laws that restrict access to the courts 423 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 423 General corporate regulation 426 Taxation 427 Other issues 427 Conclusion 428 Summary 15.1 Access to the courts to challenge administrative action is an important common law right. Judicial review of administrative action is about setting the boundaries of government power.1 It is about ensuring government officials obey the law and act within their prescribed powers.2 15.2 This chapter discusses access to the courts to challenge administrative action or decision making.3 It is about judicial review, rather than merits review by administrators or tribunals. It does not focus on judicial review of primary legislation 1 ‘The position and constitution of the judicature could not be considered accidental to the institution of federalism: for upon the judicature rested the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which government power might be exercised and upon that the whole system was constructed’: R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 276 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ). 2 ‘The reservation to this Court by the Constitution of the jurisdiction in all matters in which the named constitutional writs or an injunction are sought against an officer of the Commonwealth is a means of assuring to all people affected that officers of the Commonwealth obey the law and neither exceed nor neglect any jurisdiction which the law confers on them’: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476, [104] (Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
    [Show full text]
  • Lions Over the Throne - the Udicj Ial Revolution in English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 6 Article 8 Number 1 Dickinson Journal of International Law 1987 Lions Over The Throne - The udicJ ial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz N. David Palmeter Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Palmeter, N. David (1987) "Lions Over The Throne - The udJ icial Revolution In English Administrative Law by Bernard Schwartz," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 6: No. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol6/iss1/8 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lions Over the Throne - The Judicial Revolution in English Administrative Law, by Bernard Schwartz, New York and London: New York University Press, 1987 Pp. 210. Reviewed by N. David Palmeter* We learn more about our own laws when we undertake to compare them with those of another sovereign. - Justice San- dra Day O'Connor' In 1964, half a dozen years before Goldberg v. Kelly' began "a due process explosion" 3 in the United States, Ridge v. Baldwin4 be- gan a "natural justice explosion" in England. The story of this explo- sion - of this judicial revolution - is the story of the creation and development by common law judges of a system of judicial supervi- sion of administrative action that, in many ways, goes far beyond the system presently prevailing in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Preclusion of Judicial Review in England and the United States
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 27 (1985-1986) Issue 4 The Seventh Anglo-American Exchange: Judicial Review of Administrative and Article 4 Regulatory Action May 1986 Reflections on Preclusion of Judicial Review in England and the United States Sandra Day O'Connor Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Administrative Law Commons Repository Citation Sandra Day O'Connor, Reflections on Preclusion of Judicial Review in England and the United States, 27 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 643 (1986), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol27/iss4/4 Copyright c 1986 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr REFLECTIONS ON PRECLUSION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR* I. INTRODUCTION Lord Diplock said that he regarded "progress towards a compre- hensive system of administrative law ... as having been the great- est achievement of the English courts in [his] judicial lifetime." Inland Revenue Comm'rs v. National Fed'n of Self-Employed & Small Businesses Ltd., [1982] A.C. 617, 641 (1981). In the United States, we have seen comparable developments in our administra- tive law during the forty years since the enactment of the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946, as the federal courts have attempted to bring certainty, efficiency, and fairness to the law governing review of agency action while ensuring that agencies fulfill the responsibilities assigned to them by Congress and that they do so in a manner consistent with the federal Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministry of Justice Letterhead
    The Right Honourable Robert Buckland QC MP Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice Sir Bob Neill MP Chair of the Justice Committee House of Commons MoJ Ref: 86346 SW1A 0AA 17 March 2021 Dear Bob, INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW I am writing to let you and your Committee know that the Independent Review of Administrative Law has now concluded its work and the Panel’s report has been submitted to Ministers. Despite the circumstances under which the Panel worked, with the majority of their discussions having to take place virtually, they have produced an excellent, comprehensive report. I believe it goes much further than previous reviews in the use of empirical evidence and in consideration of some of the wider issues of Judicial Review, such as the evolving approach to justiciability and the arguments for and against codification. The Panel set out a number of recommendations for reform which the Government has considered carefully. I agree with the Panel’s analysis and am minded to take their recommendations forward. However, I feel that the analysis in the report supports consideration of additional policy options to more fully address the issues they identified. Therefore, I will very shortly be launching a consultation on a range of options which I want to explore before any final policy decisions are made. The IRAL call for evidence elicited many helpful submissions on Judicial Review and we are not seeking to repeat that exercise. Rather, we want consultees to focus on the measures in the consultation document. They set out our full range of thinking, which is still at an early stage, and respondents’ contributions to the consultation will help us decide which of the options to take forward.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouster Clause – Legislative Blaze and Judicial Phoenix
    Christ University Law Journal, 2, 1(2013), 21-51 ISSN 2278-4322|http://dx.doi.org/10.12728/culj.2.2 Ouster Clause: Legislative Blaze and Judicial Phoenix Sandhya Ram S A* Abstract If constitutionalism denotes obedience to the Constitution, the scheme for enforcement of obedience and invalidation of disobedience should be found in the Constitution itself. It is important that this scheme be clear and the task of enforcement be vested in a constitutional body. In such a situation, the question of custodianship i.e., who will ensure the rule of constitutionalism assumes prime importance, as any ambiguity regarding the same will result in conflicts uncalled for between legislature and judiciary. This conflict intensifies when judiciary determines the constitutionality of the legislations and the legislature defends by placing it in the „ouster clauses‟ within the Constitution to exclude the judicial determination. Judiciary counters by nullifying the legislative attempts through innovative interpretation. An attempt is made to study Article 31 B, the most prominent ouster clause in the Constitution of India barring judicial review of legislations and how the Indian judiciary retaliated to such legislative attempts and effectively curbed them. The study outlines the historical reasons which necessitated the insertion of Article 31 B in the Constitution and analyses the myriad implications of such an ouster clause within the Constitution. The constitutional basis of judicial review is studied to audit the justifiability of the open ended Ninth Schedule along with Article 31 B. A comparison between Article 31 B and the other ouster * Assistant Professor, V.M.Salgaocar College of Law, Miramar, Panaji, Goa; [email protected] 21 Sandhya Ram S A ISSN 2278-4322 clauses namely Articles 31 A and 31 C is also made, bringing out the effect and scope of Article 31 B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Independent Review of Administrative Law: Much Ado About Nothing Or Rewriting the Rules of Public Law?’ Webinar
    Welcome to Landmark Chambers’ ‘The Independent Review of Administrative Law: Much ado about nothing or rewriting the rules of public law?’ webinar The recording may be accessed here. Your speakers today are… Topic: The Government’s Topic: Response – How did we get additional here? proposals (1) Richard Drabble QC (Chair) David Elvin QC Topic: Topic: What did the The Government’s IRAL report Response – recommend? Government (and what did it Reform Proposals not (2) recommend?) Tim Buley QC Jenny Wigley QC The Independent Review of Administrative Law How did we get here? Richard Drabble QC IRAL “invites the submission of evidence on how well or effectively judicial review balances the legitimate interest in citizens being able to challenge the law fulness of executive action with the role of the executive in carrying on the business of government…The panel is particularly interested in any notable trends in judicial review over the last thirty to forty years. Specifically, the panel is interested in understanding whether the balance struck is the same now as it was before, and whether it should be struck differently going forward”. Call for evidence introduction General themes behind both IRAL itself and the government response • General suggestion of judicial overreach • The void/voidable distinction and implications for remedies and ouster clauses • Justiciability • Validity of the concept of the principle of legality Stepping stones on the way Classic formulation by Lord Diplock in Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG 1975 AC 295 It would, however, be inconsistent with the doctrine of ultra vires as it has been developed in English law as a means of controlling abuse of power by the executive arm of government if the judgment of a court in proceedings properly constituted that a statutory instrument was ultra vires were to have any lesser consequence in law than to render the instrument incapable of ever having had any legal effect upon the rights or duties of the parties to the proceedings (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Agency Enabling Acts: Misplaced Metaphors in Administrative Law
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 41 (1999-2000) Issue 5 Article 2 May 2000 Interpreting Agency Enabling Acts: Misplaced Metaphors in Administrative Law Lars Noah Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Administrative Law Commons Repository Citation Lars Noah, Interpreting Agency Enabling Acts: Misplaced Metaphors in Administrative Law, 41 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1463 (2000), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol41/iss5/2 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 41 MAY 2000 NUMBER 5 INTERPRETING AGENCY ENABLING ACTS: MISPLACED METAPHORS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LARS NOAH* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ 1464 I. COMPARING THE COMPETING METAPHORS ............ 1468 A. EnablingActs as Corporate Charters ............ 1468 B. EnablingActs as Constitutions ................ 1472 C. Enabling Acts as Sources of Common Law Norms .. 1480 II. FLAWS IN THE LOOSE CONCEPTIONS OF AGENCY ENABLING STATUTES ..................... 1484 A. Policing the Most Dangerous Branch: JudicialSupervision of Delegations ............. 1485 1. The Remnants of the Nondelegation Doctrine .... 1489 2. Honoring Legislative Supremacy .............. 1492 3. The Difficulty of PrecludingJudicial Review ..... 1498 B. Reinterring the Power to Make Federal Common Law 1504 C. Chevron Deference and "Jurisdictional"Questions . 1516 CONCLUSION ................................... 1530 * Professor of Law, University of Florida. I would like to thank Cynthia Farina, Ron Levin, Dick Merrill, Barbara Noah, and Barry Sullivan for reviewing earlier drafts of the manuscript, as well as Lash LaRue and other participants in a faculty research enclave at the Washington & Lee University School of Law for their com- ments.
    [Show full text]
  • Craig, R. J. T. (2018). Ouster Clauses, Separation of Powers and the Intention of Parliament: from Anisminic to Privacy International
    Craig, R. J. T. (2018). Ouster clauses, separation of powers and the intention of parliament: from Anisminic to Privacy International. Public Law, 4, 570-584. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID53EA620B7B011E8AC35D65417 99292D/View/FullText.html Peer reviewed version License (if available): CC BY-NC Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Sweet and Maxwell at https://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=7106&recordid=469 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ NOT FOR ONWARD CIRCULATION PLEASE Ouster clauses, separation of powers and the intention of parliament: From Anisminic to Privacy International1 In Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal the courts have been asked to consider again the vexed issue of ouster clauses.2 The relevant section of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’) purports to oust judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’). The key issue in Privacy is that the wording of the particular ouster clause is ostensibly stronger than the famous Anisminic clause.3 After a split decision in the Divisional Court (in effect), the Court of Appeal unanimously held the ouster was effective to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
    UKSC 2018/0004 In The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) FLOYD, SALES AND FLAUX LJJ BETWEEN: THE QUEEN on the application of PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Appellant - and - INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL Respondent - and - (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (2) GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS Interested Parties APPELLANT’S WRITTEN CASE Summary .................................................................................................................................. 3 Background: the decisions below ....................................................................................... 7 The Divisional Court .......................................................................................................... 9 The Court of Appeal .......................................................................................................... 10 Background: the Tribunal and its legislative framework ............................................ 11 The correct approach to the interpretation of ouster clauses ...................................... 16 Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission ........................................................ 23 Attempts to enact a post-Anisminic ouster .................................................................. 31 Other Commonwealth jurisdictions .............................................................................. 36 ISSUE 1: THE INTERPRETATION OF S. 67(8) ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Interpretation and Construction of Taciturn Bills of Rights
    AN ARTICULATE SILENCE: THE INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TACITURN BILLS OF RIGHTS by JACK TSEN-TA LEE A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Birmingham Law School College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham June 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. © 2011 Jack Tsen-Ta Lee Jack Tsen-Ta Lee School of Law, Singapore Management University 60 Stamford Road, #04-11, Singapore 178900 Tel +65.6828.1949 y Fax +65.6828.0805 E-mail [email protected] Website http://www.law.smu.edu.sg This dissertation is gratefully dedicated to my PhD supervisor Dr Elizabeth A Wicks, without whose advice and guidance this work would not have come to fruition; and to my parents, Ann and Song Chong Lee, who always believed in me. X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most grateful to the Birmingham Law School and the University of Birmingham for supporting the writing of this dissertation by providing a partial scholarship and an appointment as a visiting lecturer during the 2005–2006 academic year, and a full scholarship in the form of a postgraduate teaching assistantship between September 2006 and August 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • 18. Judicial Review
    18. Judicial Review Contents A common law principle 469 Protections from statutory encroachment 471 Principle of legality 471 Australian Constitution 472 Laws that restrict access to the courts 472 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) 473 Separate statutory schemes 480 Privative clauses 481 Other issues 485 Justifications for limits on judicial review 487 Conclusions 488 A common law principle 18.1 Judicial review is about setting the boundaries of government power.1 It is about ensuring government officials obey the law and act within their prescribed powers.2 Access to the courts for the purpose of judicial review is an important common law right. Sir William Wade stated that ‘to exempt a public authority from the jurisdiction of the courts of law is, to that extent, to grant dictatorial power’.3 18.2 In his Introduction to Australian Public Law, David Clark gives a brief history of judicial review of administrative action: Judicial review in the administrative law sense originated in the 17th century when various prerogative writs, so called because they issued in the name of the Crown, began to be issued against administrative bodies. These writs, such as certiorari, prohibition and mandamus originated in the 13th century, but were originally confined to review of the decisions of inferior courts... By the late 17th century the 1 ‘The position and constitution of the judicature could not be considered accidental to the institution of federalism: for upon the judicature rested the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance and enforcement of the boundaries within which government power might be exercised and upon that the whole system was constructed’: R v Kirby; ex parte Boilermakers’ Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, 276 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ).
    [Show full text]
  • IN the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE Claim No. CO/2368/2016 QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CO/2368/2016 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT B E T W E E N: THE QUEEN on the application of PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Claimant -and- INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL Defendant -and- (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (2) GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS Interested Parties —————————————————————————————————— CLAIMANT’S SKELETON ARGUMENT ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE For hearing: 2 November 2016, 1 day —————————————————————————————————— A. Introduction 1. The preliminary issue raises an important question of law: is a decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal amenable to judicial review? Does the ‘ouster clause’ in section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) prevent the High Court from correcting an error of law made by the IPT? 2. A decision of the IPT is amenable to judicial review. Applying the principles in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, the ouster clause does not prevent judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal where it errs in law. 3. Lang J concluded that the Claimant had (a) an arguable case that the IPT had got the law wrong; and (b) granted a Protective Costs Order. If the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this claim, a significant error of law may go uncorrected. 1 B. The IPT proceedings and the substantive claim for judicial review 4. The claim before the IPT was about the hacking of computers, including mobile devices and network infrastructure (known within the security and intelligence services as ‘CNE’ - computer and network exploitation). 5. The potential intrusiveness of CNE, as illustrated by what could be accessed by hacking a mobile phone, was summarised by Chief Justice Roberts in Riley v California in the Supreme Court of the United States: “A cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house…” As Roberts CJ explained: “Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person.
    [Show full text]