Data-driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and the Law. Edited by Uta Kohl and Jacob Eisler. [Cambridge University Press, 2021. xvi + 316 pp. Hardback £85.00. ISBN 978-1-10-883569-5.]

Abstract

problems posed by ouster clauses. There must be some question as to whether the decision in Conway deserves the attention which it receives in this volume. A number of authors note that this decision lacks continuing significance. Latham-Gambi points out that it was not an action for judicial review (in terms of a challenge to decision-making) at all, and that this explained why the House of Lords took a different approach: “[r]ather than making the decision-maker reconsider his decision, in Conway the House of Lords assumed responsibility to take the decision itself” (p. 388). Given that Conway is unlikely to be familiar for those reading current administrative law cases and commentary, it may be that emphasis on it could have been reduced. Alternatively, Arvind and Stirton, in their chapter on Conway, could have explained why it has fallen into relative obscurity in practice but nevertheless deserves prominence in research. The analysis in these papers contains much insight and factual interest. One perspective which is lacking is a sectoral approach to the Quartet. Knight says that citation of the Quartet “is almost a signal to say, ‘there’s nothing to see here”’ (p. 314). However, the citation of the Quartet may more accurately be an acknowledgement by an advocate that “I have no context-specific authority for you on this point”. Scott makes the comment that “the application of the rules of natural justice after Ridge is almost infinitely context-dependent” (p. 247). It is a shame that the lengthy volume does not consider how decisions in the Quartet have applied in various sectors subject to administrative law (e.g. the Quartet in environmental law, the Quartet in immigration law). Further, in the introduction, the editors refer (without reference) to “those who view [the ‘break with the past’ reading of the Quartet] as wrong turn which muddied the separation of powers in the UK” (p. 13). This collection might have been better in terms of balance had it included more contributions from a political constitutionalist angle. That said, this is already a rich collection of essays, providing food for thought for even the hungriest scholar of administrative law.