Case record
Country
United Kingdom
Court
House of Lords
Year
1969
Areas of Law
Administrative law, Constitutional law, Judicial review
Citation
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission, House of Lords (1969)
Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission ([1969] 2 AC 147) is a cornerstone of modern public and . The House of Lords dismantled statutory 'ouster clauses' (provisions seeking to exclude ), ruling that any administrative decision infected by an error of law is a nullity () and subject to judicial review.
Following the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egyptian authorities seized British mining assets owned by Anisminic Ltd. Anisminic claimed compensation from a UK government fund managed by the Foreign Compensation Commission under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. The Commission misconstrued statutory eligibility rules and rejected the claim. Section 4(4) of the governing statute explicitly stated: 'The determination by the commission of any application... shall not be questioned in any court of law.'
Ouster clauses / of executive errors of law
Foreign Compensation Act 1950 text, Foreign Compensation Commission determination notice, asset evaluation documentation, and UK-Egypt treaty compensation records.
The Commission argued that Section 4(4) contained an absolute statutory ouster clause barring all court . Anisminic argued that the Commission made a fatal error of law in interpreting statutory eligibility, rendering its decision a complete nullity.
The House of Lords ruled in favor of Anisminic, holding that the ouster clause did not prevent .
Lord Reid held that a statutory ouster clause protects only valid 'determinations.' If an administrative tribunal makes an error of law (such as taking into account irrelevant considerations or misinterpreting statutory tests), it acts beyond its , rendering its decision a complete nullity that cannot be protected by an ouster clause.
Effectively neutralized statutory ouster clauses barring and established that any error of law renders an administrative decision .
Effectively neutralized statutory ouster clauses barring and established that any error of law renders an administrative decision .
Beyond borders
UK · ** United States **
** Can Parliament bar courts from reviewing administrative decisions? ###
The United Kingdom and the United States both have systems that address , but they approach it very differently. Anisminic (1969) neutralized ouster clauses in the UK, while the U.S. has strong judicial review traditions. ###
** U.S. has strong administrative law and judicial review traditions. **Why preferable to others:** India, France, China, and Russia have different traditions. **
The underlying problem was identical: how to ensure administrative decisions can be reviewed. In the UK, the House of Lords had to decide whether an ouster clause barred . In the U.S., courts have addressed similar issues. ###
| Topic | UK | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Issue | Do ouster clauses bar judicial review? | Can Congress bar judicial review? |
| Constitutional Basis | Common law judicial review; ultra vires doctrine | Article III; judicial review |
| Leading Case | Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) | Crowell v. Benson (1932) |
| Court's Reasoning | Errors of law make decisions nullities; ouster clauses ineffective | Courts can review administrative decisions |
| Outcome | Neutralized ouster clauses | Established judicial review standards |
Both systems recognize that administrative decisions should be subject to , and both courts have issued landmark rulings to define these boundaries. In both countries, the judiciary has played a key role in advancing . ###
The paths diverge in approach. In the UK, Anisminic held that administrative bodies making errors of law act beyond their statutory power (), making decisions nullities that ouster clauses cannot protect. The UK approach is ultra vires-focused and common-law based. In the U.S., by contrast, courts have developed doctrines under Article III, with more structured review standards. The U.S. approach is more constitutional and structured. The result is a more common-law approach in the UK and a more constitutional one in the U.S. ###
Read together, these decisions show that is not just about power—it is about accountability. In the UK, the common-law approach ensures flexibility. In the U.S., the constitutional approach provides structure. For citizens, both systems provide administrative accountability. ###
Anisminic and U.S. administrative cases both gave judges the power to define review, but they approached the problem differently. One is common-law; the other constitutional. Together, they show that review is not just about courts—it is about justice. ***
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll