Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC ...

Facts

• Anisminic Ltd, a British company, had its assets seized in Egypt during the Suez Crisis.
• The Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) was established to manage compensation claims arising from such losses.
• Anisminic submitted a claim to the FCC, but the claim was rejected on the basis that the FCC interpreted the relevant Order in Council as requiring British nationality for the successor in title.
• This interpretation by the FCC was disputed by Anisminic, who contested the FCC’s decision.
• The Foreign Compensation Act 1950 contained an ouster clause—Section 4(4)—which stated that FCC decisions “shall not be questioned in any court of law.”
• The dispute centered on whether the FCC’s decision was protected by this ouster clause despite an alleged legal error.

Issues

1. Whether the FCC’s legal error in interpreting the Order in Council amounted to a jurisdictional error that rendered its decision void.
2. Whether Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 (the ouster clause) prevented courts from reviewing the FCC’s decision when acted outside its authority.
3. To what extent courts can supervise decisions of administrative bodies in the presence of statutory provisions seeking to prevent judicial review.

Decision

• The House of Lords found that the FCC misapplied the Order in Council and thereby acted beyond its powers.
• It was held that only decisions within the FCC’s lawful authority were protected by the ouster clause.
• Where a tribunal commits a legal error that deprives it of jurisdiction, its decision is void and not shielded by an ouster clause.
• The House of Lords unanimously rejected the FCC’s decision, finding that Section 4(4) did not protect decisions tainted by jurisdictional error.

Legal Principles

• Jurisdictional errors by administrative bodies render their decisions void and subject to judicial review.
• Ouster clauses do not protect decisions made outside the legal authority of tribunals or public bodies.
• Courts maintain the responsibility to ensure that administrative decisions conform to legal boundaries and legislative intent.
• The principle established in Anisminic has been affirmed and developed by later cases, supporting legal accountability and access to judicial oversight.

Conclusion

The decision in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission fundamentally transformed administrative law by limiting the effect of ouster clauses and affirming that courts may review administrative decisions for jurisdictional errors, ensuring that public bodies remain within their legal authority and are accountable to the law.