A court may be willing to accept that its supervisory jurisdiction has been excluded by giving effect to an ouster clause: Neil Parpworth examines these limited circumstances
- In the recent decision in R (on the application of Oceana) v Upper Tribunal and another [2023] EWHC 791 (Admin), the judge held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the court had been successfully ousted by s 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
- However, it is to be hoped that this is not replicated in other legislation, as any attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the courts to review the lawfulness of executive action has significant implications for the rule of law.
Hitherto, ouster clauses have been an uncommon feature in legislation. This is neither surprising nor a cause for concern, since the underlying purpose of such a clause is to exclude or prevent the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts from being exercised. Where ouster clauses have been employed, the response of the courts has generally been to interpret them as narrowly as possible, thereby ensuring that the decisions
