Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Ouster_clause> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 15 of
15
with 100 items per page.
- Ouster_clause abstract "An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.Ouster clauses may be divided into two species – total ouster clauses and partial ouster clauses. In the United Kingdom, the effectiveness of total ouster clauses is fairly limited. In the case of Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Committee (1968), the House of Lords held that ouster clauses cannot prevent the courts from examining an executive decision that, due to an error of law, is a nullity. Subsequent cases held that Anisminic had abolished the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. Thus, although prior to Anisminic an ouster clause was effective in preventing judicial review where only a non-jurisdictional error of law was involved, following that case ouster clauses do not prevent courts from dealing with both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, except in a number of limited situations.In India, ouster clauses are almost always ineffective because judicial review is regarded as part of the basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be excluded. The position in Singapore is unclear. Two cases decided after Anisminic have maintained the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, and it is not yet known whether the courts will eventually adopt the legal position in the United Kingdom. The Chief Justice of Singapore, Chan Sek Keong, suggested in a 2010 lecture that ouster clauses may be inconsistent with Article 93 of the Constitution, which vests judicial power in the courts, and may thus be void. However, he emphasized that he was not expressing a concluded view on the matter.In contrast with total ouster clauses, courts in the United Kingdom have affirmed the validity of partial ouster clauses that specify a time period after which aggrieved persons can no longer apply to court for a remedy.".
- Ouster_clause thumbnail Justice-OldSupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20071013.jpg?width=300.
- Ouster_clause wikiPageID "39584951".
- Ouster_clause wikiPageRevisionID "593915334".
- Ouster_clause subject Category:Administrative_law.
- Ouster_clause subject Category:Constitutional_law.
- Ouster_clause subject Category:Statutory_law.
- Ouster_clause comment "An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function.".
- Ouster_clause label "Ouster clause".
- Ouster_clause sameAs m.0vxfk0h.
- Ouster_clause sameAs Q17165728.
- Ouster_clause sameAs Q17165728.
- Ouster_clause wasDerivedFrom Ouster_clause?oldid=593915334.
- Ouster_clause depiction Justice-OldSupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20071013.jpg.
- Ouster_clause isPrimaryTopicOf Ouster_clause.
