Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

"Anisminic" is an important House of Lords decision in the area of administrative law, establishing in particular that any error of law made by a public body will make its decision a nullity and that a statutory exclusion clause does not deprive the courts from their jurisdiction in judicial review unless it expressly states this.

Facts of the case

As a result of the Suez Crisis some mining properties of the appellant Anisminic located in the Sinai peninsula were seized by the Egyptian government before November 1956. The appellants then sold the mining properties to an Egyptian government-owned organisation called TEDO in 1957.

In 1959, a piece of subordinate legislation was passed under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950, to distribute compensation paid by the Egyptian government to the UK government with respect to British properties it had nationalised. The appellants claimed that they were eligible for compensation under this piece of subordinate legislation, which was determined by a tribunal (the respondents in this case) set up under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950.

The tribunal however, decided that the appellants were not eligible for compensation, because their "successors in title" (TEDO) did not have the British nationality as required under under one of the provisions of the subordinate legislation.

The key issues

There were two important issues on the appeal to the Court of Appeal and later, the House of Lords. The first was straightforward: whether the tribunal had made an error of law in construing the term "successor of title" under the subordinate legislation.

The second issue was more complex and had important implications for the law on judicial review. Even if the tribunal had made an error of law, the House of Lords had to decide whether or not an appellate court had the jurisdiction to intervene in the tribunal's decision. Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 stated that:

"The determination by the commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called into question in any court of law".

This was a so called "ouster clause".


By a 3-2 majority, the House of Lords decided that section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act did not preclude the court from inquiring whether or not the order of the tribunal was a nullity, and accordingly it decided that the tribunal had misconstrued the legislation (the term "successor in title"), and that the determination by the defendant tribunal that the appellant did not qualify to be paid compensation was null, and that they were entitled to have a share of the compensation fund paid by the Egyptian government.

Effect of the decision

The decision illustrates the courts' reluctance to give effect to any legislative provision that attempts to exclude their jurisdiction in judicial review. Even when such an exclusion is relatively clearly worded, the courts will hold that it does not precluded them from scrutinising the decision on an error of law and quashing it when such an error occurs.

It also establishes that any error of law by a public body will result in its decision being "ultra vires".

External links

* [ Full text of the decision]

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Judicial review in English Law — Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by a government authority, such as a… …   Wikipedia

  • Colin Pearson, Baron Pearson — Rt. Hon. Baron Pearson Colin Hargreaves Pearson, Baron Pearson PC, KC, CBE (28 July 1899 – 31 January 1980) was a Canadian born English barrister and judge. Rising to sit as a judge in the House of Lords, he is best remembered for his… …   Wikipedia

  • Judicial review in English law — See also: Judicial review Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual. A person who feels that an exercise of… …   Wikipedia

  • Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act — Old Parliament House, photographed in January 2006 An Act to provide for the maintenance of religious harmony and for establishing a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and for matters conne …   Wikipedia

  • List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases — This page is for notable House of Lords legal cases. pre 1850 * Donaldson v. Beckett , 2 Brown s Parl. Cases 129, 1 Eng. Rep. 837; 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (1774) * Wright v. Tatham (1838) 4 Bing. NC 489 : hearsay 1850 1899 * Dimes v Grand… …   Wikipedia

  • Ultra vires — is a Latin phrase that literally means beyond the powers . Its inverse is called intra vires , meaning within the powers . It is used as a legal term in a number of common law contexts.Corporate lawIn corporate law, ultra vires describes acts… …   Wikipedia

  • Collateral fact doctrine — The collateral fact doctrine is a doctrine in English law asserted by LJ Diplock in Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission. It asserts that in judicial review cases a distinction can be made between misconstruction of an enabling statute for …   Wikipedia

  • Sydney Templeman, Baron Templeman — Sydney William Templeman, Baron Templeman, MBE, PC, was a British judge.He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1982 to 1994 in the House of Lords and was additionally made a life peer as Baron Templeman, of White Lackington in the County… …   Wikipedia