Inter alia, the Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s 67(8) did not “oust” the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) for error of law. Following authority, it was clear that the drafter of s 67(8) would have had no doubt that a determination vitiated by any error of law, jurisdictional or not, was to be treated as no determination at all, and so could not be ousted. The plain words of the subsection must yield to the principle that such a clause will not protect a decision that is legally invalid, as there is a common law presumption against ousting the High Court’s jurisdiction.
Lord Sumption dissenting felt that the rule of law was sufficiently vindicated by the judicial character of the IPT and it did not require a right of appeal from the decisions of a judicial body of this kind. Lord Wilson’s dissent centred on the precise wording of s 67(8).
Jonathan Glasson QC is involved in this case.
On appeal from:  EWCA Civ 1868.
Court’s Press Summaryhttps://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0004-press-summary.pdf