Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (‘Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission’) is a famous English constitutional law final judgment from the House of Lords.

Our summary of the Anisminic v Foreign Compensation judgment

The Anisminic v Foreign Compensation judgment reaffirmed the long-established principle that a court is always able to inquire whether there has actually been a “decision”, meaning a legally valid decision.

If there is no legally valid decision (that is, the purported decision is legally a nullity) there is no “decision” to which an ouster clause can apply.

The Lords found the purported decision to be void, because the tribunal had misconstrued the term “successor in title”. Since the tribunal’s determination that Anisminic did not qualify for compensation was null, Anisminic were entitled to a share of the compensation paid by the Egyptian government.

The Anisminic v Foreign Compensation judgment established that any error of law, even one made by a tribunal acting within a broader “ouster clause” that seeks to exclude judicial review, makes the decision void and subject to review by the courts. 

The Commission ruled that a company from Egypt, not the British company Anisminic Ltd, was the “successor in title” to a nationalized mine, making Anisminic ineligible for compensation under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950.

The Error of Law: The House of Lords found this to be an error of law, as the Commission had misinterpreted the relevant legal term. An error of law was considered to make the decision a nullity, meaning it had no legal effect and was not a “determination” in the eyes of the law.

The Ouster Clause: The case was significant because the Foreign Compensation Act contained an “ouster clause” that stated the Commission’s decisions should not be challenged by judicial review.

The Outcome: The House of Lords held that the ouster clause could not prevent judicial review of a decision that was legally a nullity. By misconstruing the law, the Commission had acted outside its jurisdiction, and the ouster clause was ineffective.

Further reading: Grounds for setting aside a judgment – Void or voidable?

Tab_3C___ANISMINIC_v_FOREIGN_COMPENSATION_COMMISSION