Mike Gordon: Privacy International, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Synthetic Constitution
The case of R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the latest in a series of high profile judicial engagements with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The case concerned … Continue reading
Anurag Deb: Privacy International: A Matter of Constitutional Logic and Judicial Trust?
Introduction The High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Privacy International v IPT have ignited the debate on the ‘validity’ or otherwise of ouster clauses in the UK constitution … Continue reading
Adam Tucker: Parliamentary Intention, Anisminic, and the Privacy International Case (Part Two)
In Part 1, I cast Anisminic as an example of a common law doctrine of interpretation which can require courts to depart from the intention of Parliament when interpreting ouster … Continue reading
Adam Tucker: Parliamentary Intention, Anisminic, and the Privacy International Case (Part One)
Introduction Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard argument in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This litigation has already attracted substantial scholarly attention in the published literature (notably … Continue reading
Hayley J. Hooper: Balancing Access to Justice and the Public Interest: Privacy International and Ouster Clauses in the Broader Constitutional Context
In November 2017, the Court of Appeal in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal unanimously held that a so-called “ouster clause” in respect of the of the Investigatory Powers … Continue reading
Thomas Fairclough: Privacy International: Constitutional Substance over Semantics in Reading Ouster Clauses
I have previously written on this blog and elsewhere about statutory interpretation and the rule of law. In the previous blog post I stated that the idea “that the courts … Continue reading
