But here the court expressly based its conclusion on three errors of law.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson found that there were two reasons why the general rule that all errors of law are reviewable does not apply to visitors.
But decisions are still subject to appeal, and this means that errors of law – but only errors of law – can be examined and corrected if necessary.
Occasionally, the distinction between errors of law and errors of fact can be fuzzy.
Ouster clauses are related to another administrative law concept: jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
If this distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law exists, section 8B(2) will preclude judicial review of non-jurisdictional errors of law but not jurisdictional errors.
However, an ouster clause still precludes judicial review of non-jurisdictional errors of law.
The willingness of the Court to review such errors of fact is an exception to the general rule that the Court only reviews errors of law.
In any case, it is said that the courts generally treat errors of fact committed by public authorities differently from errors of law.
However, this distinction is debatable, and the view has been taken that courts sometimes simply regard a matter as one involving an error of law if they wish to adopt an interventionist approach, and seek to allow judicial review to take place.
