This chapter considers limits on the availability of judicial review with reference to the role of ouster clauses and public interest immunity. The first concern is to assess the extent to which it is possible to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts by drafting objectively worded statutory ouster provisions, and by the use of subjective language that gives a very broad discretion to a decision-maker. In doing so full account is taken of the implications of the pivotal House of Lords decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission. In regard to the amenability to judicial of tribunals there is analysis of the landmark decision of R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal. The case law concerning the interpretation of time limit clauses is also considered. The second concern in this chapter is to explain the significance of public interest immunity. The trial process is founded on the principle of a claimant (or defendant in the criminal setting) having a right of access to the evidence which will be presented in court but on occasion a claim of PII can be made by public bodies to suppress the disclosure of this evidence. The analysis here demonstrates how the ground rules for deciding whether or not to allow such an immunity claim to succeed have evolved through a number of key decisions. Duncan v Camell Laird constituted a high water mark in supporting the executive but since Conway v Rimmer and, more recently, ex p Wiley blanket immunity has been replaced with a balancing of the interests of the state against those of the claimant.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, House of Lords. This case note deals with how the House of Lords interpreted an ouster clause, a statutory provision which seeks to prevent judicial supervision of decisions made by subordinate decision-making bodies, and considers the wider constitutional implications of the courts’ approach to ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court. This case examined the circumstances under which the Upper Tribunal would be subject to judicial review. It also considers the possible implications of the government’s proposals in response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) (2021), inasmuch as they may impact judicial reviews under the process established by Cart. There is also some discussion of ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter discusses breach of trust. Breach of trust, as a wrong in private law, must be distinguished from other wrongs such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The rules and principles that govern a trustee’s liability for breach of trust are considered in detail, including with the trustee’s liability to account and the performance interest in a trust; falsification and surcharging; equitable compensation; and personal claims where the account is not falsified. Following that, related issues concerning breach of trust are considered, including the liability of trustees inter se; beneficiaries’ consent to a breach of trust; trustees’ relief from liability under the Trustee Act 1925; trustee exemption clauses and ouster of trustee duties; de facto trusteeship; and a trustee’s liability when breach is procured by a third party.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Cart) v The Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, Supreme Court. This case examined the circumstances under which the Upper Tribunal would be subject to judicial review. It also considers implications of the government’s proposals in response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) (2021) in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill 2021–22, in terms of the impact on judicial reviews under the process established by Cart. There is also some discussion of ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, Supreme Court. This case revisited the legality of ouster clauses discussed in Anisminic ([1969] 2 AC 147) in the context of the reviewability of decisions made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The note also discusses the implications of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) (2021) and the government’s response to the review, as regards ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary and questions from author Thomas Webb.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, Supreme Court. This case revisited the legality of ouster clauses discussed in Anisminic ([1969] 2 AC 147) in the context of the reviewability of decisions made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The note also discusses the implications of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) (2021) and the government’s response to the review, as regards ouster clauses. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
