Standing, time limits, and ouster clauses
The procedural gatekeepers of judicial review shape access to justice and constitutional review
Overview
The procedural requirements for judicial review constitute fundamental aspects of administrative law, determining who may challenge public decisions, when they must act, and whether the courts possess jurisdiction at all. These three interlocking elements — standing (locus standi), time limits, and ouster clauses — operate as gatekeepers to judicial review, mediating between the constitutional imperative of legal accountability and practical concerns about finality, certainty, and judicial resources.
Standing determines whether a particular claimant possesses sufficient interest to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The modern law, shaped decisively by the IRC case and subsequent authorities, has evolved from restrictive technical rules towards a more contextual approach that considers the nature of the challenge, the claimant's relationship to the decision, and broader public interest factors. This liberalisation reflects changing conceptions of judicial review's constitutional function, from protecting individual rights to ensuring governmental legality.
Time limits impose temporal boundaries on challenges, currently requiring proceedings to be commenced promptly and in any event within three months. This requirement serves multiple purposes: protecting public authorities from stale challenges, ensuring legal certainty for those affected by administrative decisions, and encouraging swift resolution of disputes. Yet the courts retain discretion to extend time where good reason exists, creating tension between certainty and justice.
Ouster clauses represent legislative attempts to exclude or limit judicial review, raising profound constitutional questions about parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. From Anisminic's revolutionary approach to modern battles over tribunal finality, ouster clauses illuminate fundamental tensions in our constitutional order. The courts' response — typically interpreting such clauses narrowly whilst formally respecting parliamentary intention — demonstrates judicial review's quasi-constitutional status in contemporary public law.
Want the rest of the canon?
Get the free “50 Must-Know Cases for UK Law Exams” guide plus weekly study tips, sent to your inbox.