Judicial Reviews Exclusion by Privative Clauses: Dead or Just Resting?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The privative clause is dead or so we are told. Nonetheless, it remains a topic of conversation and judicial attention in both Australia and England, albeit for somewhat different reasons. The Australian approach to privative clauses is substantially coloured by the relevance attached to the concept of jurisdictional error and is therefore distinctly constitutional in its outlook. The English courts have long ago dismissed the role of jurisdictional error and, although they continue to rely on the precedent of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, do so while rejecting the reasoning which informs the use of that case in Australia. This article considers the approaches taken in both jurisdictions and attempts to set out the continuing relevance of the privative clause in Australia.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)16-19
JournalPrecedent
Volume158
Issue numberJune
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Judicial Reviews Exclusion by Privative Clauses: Dead or Just Resting?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this