Anisminic 2.0

15 May 2019 by

The Supreme Court has ruled in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22 that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s decisions are nevertheless amenable to judicial review, despite the existence of a powerfully-drawn ‘ouster clause’ preventing its decisions from being questioned by a court.

In this article we will navigate our way through the decision and have a look at the principles that lie behind this case and what its wider significance might be.


The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is the body which has jurisdiction to examine the conduct of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Effectively, the IPT is the court where a person can challenge the lawfulness of a decision to put them under surveillance.

The question in this case was whether the decisions of the IPT itself could be challenged in court. In particular, did the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review brought by Privacy International against a decision by the IPT that computer hacking by GCHQ fell lawfully within its general warrant to undertake such activity?

The ouster clause

This case involved the interpretation of what is known as an ‘ouster clause’ — called this because its aim is to ‘oust’ the jurisdiction of the courts to question a decision by a statutory body.

The ears of public law students will surely have pricked up at these words, for of course they bring to mind the case of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] UKHL 6, one of the most famous cases in the development of modern British public law.

In that case, a statutory commission was given the job of deciding whether compensation should be awarded for property sequestrated as a result of the 1956 Suez Crisis. The legislation empowering it involved an ouster clause which provided that the

determination by the Commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called in question in any court of law.

However, the House of Lords ruled by a 3-2 majority that this provision was not enough to oust judicial review for an error of law.

The majority considered that the commission had based its decision on an inquiry into the nature of the appellant company which the legislation did not empower it to make. Therefore, it had gone outside its jurisdiction. This meant that the determination that the appellant did not qualify to be paid compensation was not a true determination, but a nullity. As the ‘determination’ was not a determination at all, there was no problem with the court calling it into question.

This reasoning may seem redolent of Alice in Wonderland. But the seriousness of the issue behind the word game cannot be doubted. The jurisdiction of the High Court to supervise decisions by the commission was considered by the majority of the House of Lords to be so important that the language of the ouster clause was not enough to displace it. And so the ouster was ousted.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

However, in Privacy International’s case, the Court of Appeal had decided that the ouster preventing the IPT’s decisions from being challenged did successfully oust the jurisdiction of the High Court.

The ouster is set out in section 67 (8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which provides that

Except to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order otherwise provide, determinations, awards and other decisions of the Tribunal (including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court.

The view of the Court of Appeal, as discussed by David Hart QC here, was that this was materially different from that in Anisiminic, as it expressly ousted jurisdiction to question whether the IPT had jurisdiction. As such,

… the drafter of section 67(8) has expressly adverted to the possibility of the IPT making an error of law going to its jurisdiction or power to act, by the words in parenthesis in that provision: “including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction”. Therefore, at least so far as the word “decision” is concerned, it is not tenable to apply the simple distinction relied upon in Anisminic in the context of section 4(4) of the 1950 Act between a “determination” and a purported determination, in the sense of a determination made without jurisdiction.

The conclusion was that the legislation had been drafted in such a way at to enable the IPT, the expert body tasked with examining decisions on the use of investigatory powers, to make decisions on issues before it including on questions of law without the need for the High Court to have ultimate supervision.

The Supreme Court’s decision

The case came before a 7-judge panel of the Supreme Court. By a 4-3 majority (as narrow as the scoreline in the Anisminic decision), the court allowed the appeal.

First, Lord Carnwath disavowed the logical gambit used in Anisminic, stating that

it is highly artificial, and somewhat insulting, to describe the closely reasoned judgment of this eminent tribunal as a “nullity”, merely because there is disagreement with one aspect of its legal assessment. [82]

He considered that the case law — not least the decision of the Supreme Court in 2011 that an unappealable decision of the Upper Tribunal was still subject to judicial review — had moved things on from these “somewhat technical debates”. But it nonetheless demonstrated

the continuing strength of the fundamental presumption against ousting the supervisory role of the High Court over other adjudicative bodies, even those established by Parliament with apparently equivalent status and powers to those of the High Court. [99]

He then noted that this presumption is based on what is known as the ‘principle of legality’: when enacting legislation

Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. [100]

The practical importance of this principle was seen when clause 11 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill 2003 was introduced. That clause introduced an extreme ouster which expressly precluded a court from entertaining proceedings to determine whether a purported decision was a nullity for any reason. The clause was withdrawn after it met powerful objections within and outside Parliament [101].

Turning to the ouster clause in this case, Lord Carnwath considered that it was not as clear as it might have been:

A more explicit formula might perhaps have anticipated the extreme wording of the bill presented in 2003 (para 101 above), excluding challenges to any determination or “purported” determination as “a nullity by reason of lack of jurisdiction, error of law, or any other matter”. The reason for not adopting that course may simply be that, as in 2003, it might not have been expected to survive Parliamentary scrutiny. [111]

He concluded that the ouster clause was not clear and explicit enough to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider a challenge to a decision by the IPT.


This is a highly significant decision which may have wide ramifications. In the concluding section of the leading judgment, Lord Carnwath said that although he had not had to decide on the general lawfulness of ouster clauses,

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. [144]

The full significance of this statement, which was not part of the binding ratio and on which Lord Lloyd-Jones, another of the Judges in the majority, remained neutral [168], may be discovered if the day comes that Parliament passes an ouster clause extreme enough to embrace such an eventuality. But that was not today.

Jonathan Metzer is the commissioning editor of the UK Human Rights Blog. He is a barrister at One Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: