Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969]

[1969] 2 AC 147 · House of Lords · United Kingdom

administrative lawadministrative law

Issue

Could the courts review a decision affected by legal error despite broad statutory wording attempting to exclude review?

Held

Yes. A purported determination infected by a material error of law was a nullity and not protected by the ouster clause.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Landmark authority on jurisdictional error, ouster clauses, and the supervisory role of the courts.

Facts

A compensation body rejected Anisminic's claim under a statutory compensation scheme, and an ouster clause purported to shield determinations from challenge in court.

Issue

Could the courts review a decision affected by legal error despite broad statutory wording attempting to exclude review?

Held

Yes. A purported determination infected by a material error of law was a nullity and not protected by the ouster clause.

Ratio Decidendi

A material error of law can render an administrative decision reviewable even where legislation appears to exclude review.

Reasoning

The House of Lords treated jurisdictional error broadly, holding that a tribunal acting on the wrong legal basis exceeds the authority Parliament gave it. A clause protecting valid determinations does not necessarily protect a legally defective non-determination.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission ([1969] 2 AC 147) strengthens a administrative law answer because the case reflects the principle that A material error of law can render an administrative decision reviewable even where legislation appears to exclude review. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Could the courts review a decision affected by legal error despite broad statutory wording attempting to exclude review? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Landmark authority on jurisdictional error, ouster clauses, and the supervisory role of the courts.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources