Anisminic Ltd vs. Foreign Compensation Commission || Case Summary|| [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK) ||Judicial Review

Judicial Review

FACTS

In Anisminic Ltd vs. Foreign Compensation Commission Anisminic Ltd sought compensation for property lost in Egypt during the Suez crisis. The Foreign Compensation Commission denied their claim based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The Commission's decisions were protected by an ouster clause.

ISSUES

Can courts review decisions made under statutory authority if an ouster clause attempts to exclude judicial oversight?

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISION

1. Foreign Compensation Act 1950

2. Principles of Judicial Review under common law.

JUDGEMENT

The House of Lords held that the Commission’s decision was subject to judicial review. Lord Reid stated that a decision based on an error of law is not a valid decision at all.

KEY FINDINGS

Ouster clauses cannot prevent courts from reviewing decisions that are legally flawed.

The court distinguished between a purported decision and a lawful decision.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT

Broadened the scope of judicial review in the UK.

Asserted the judiciary’s constitutional role in supervising executive actions.

CONCLUSION

Anisminic established that legal errors by public bodies are open to review, safeguarding the rule of law even in the presence of statutory ouster clauses.

Vinita Pathak