I want to explore three aspects of the decision in Anisminic v [I]n the Anisminic case the Act ousted the jurisdiction of the court altogether. Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission  2 AC (HL): The ‘ The breakthrough that the Anisminic case made was the recognition by the. II. FACTS OF THE CASE. As a result of the Suez Crisis some mining ^m;,a& properties of the appellant Anisminic located in the Sinai peninsula.
|Published (Last):||20 July 2014|
|PDF File Size:||16.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Chapter 9: Notes on key cases
In such a case the court is entitled to substitute its own opinion for that of the person to whom the decision has been entrusted only if the decision is so aberrant that it cannot be classed as rational: It established the ” collateral fact doctrine “, snisminic any error of law made by a public body will make its decision a nullity and that anisminix statutory exclusion clause does not deprive the courts from their jurisdiction in judicial review unless it expressly states this.
That it should remain so is perhaps as inevitable as it is desirable. What force short of full force and effect can the courts give to an ouster clause? Again, appropriate oversight would be channelled, not excluded, with substantive considerations to the fore.
The judges held as follows concerning unfairness: Even if the tribunal had made an error of law, the House of Lords had to decide whether or not an appellate court had the jurisdiction to intervene in the tribunal’s decision. Secondly, the fact or evidence must have been “established”, in the sense that it was uncontentious and objectively verifiable.
But it has a strong substantive underpinning. First, the court is making a determination about what the rule of law requires — and thus about how constitutionally offensive the unavailability of judicial review would be in the context of the case.
But Racal lost its anismniic for judicial review of an order of a High Court judge ordering inspection of its books for the purpose of investigating an allegation of a criminal offence. Applying this approach, he concluded that:.
The Court of Appeal gave judgment in this case in November The tribunal, however, decided that the appellants were not eligible for compensation, because their “successors in title” TEDO did not have the British nationality as required under one of the provisions of the subordinate legislation. Leggatt J was anidminic firmly of the view that reading section 67 8 as excluding judicial review would given the unavailability of appeal affront the rule of law.
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission 
Applying this approach, he concluded that: Edwards v Bairstow  AC Given the authority of Anisminicthe answer to that question might have seemed obvious: It is not entirely clear from this paragraph just how difficult Leggatt J considers the exclusion of judicial review to be.
Again, this is reflected in the New Zealand and Irish cases: I will explain their relevance by reference to comparative materials. The appellants then sold the mining properties to an Egyptian government-owned organisation called TEDO in However, this linguistic similarity was considered to be of only anismijic relevance by the President.
Although it has repeatedly been said that Parliament could, in principle, exclude the possibility of judicial review by using language of sufficient clarity, it is striking that no language so far used unless it be that in the present case has been held to be sufficiently clear to have that effect. The Wnisminic Court of Canada has engaged in strikingly similar reasoning, albeit in a different constitutional framework Crevier v.
Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Notes on key cases
Alternatively, if the IPT has relevant expertise on some issues of law, this would favour a Cart -type approach. Looked at from the opposite end of the telescope, the court is determining whether the constitutional pull of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is sufficient to invest the statutory text with the capacity to override the rule of law.
She was turned down; she lost in the tribunal, and in an appeal to another tribunal on a question of law; she won in the Court of Appeal but finally lost in the House of Lords. First, there must have been a mistake as to an existing fact, including a mistake as to the availability of evidence on a particular matter. The company argued that the Commission had jurisdiction only if the area affected was a substantial part of the UK, and that the court had to decide whether that was the case and impose it on the Commission in order to keep it within its jurisdiction.
Posted on February 10, November 28, by Mark Elliott. A bus company sought judicial review on the ground that the Commission was investigating a merger that only affected a small part of the country see p for a map. The tribunal, however, decided that the appellants were not eligible for compensation, because their “successors in title” TEDO did not have the British nationality as required under one of the provisions of the subordinate legislation. Fourthly, the mistake must have played a material not necessarily decisive part in the tribunal’s reasoning.
On the misinterpretation of this decision that has become the basis of the doctrine of review for error of law, see pp Skip to content Menu. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission.
But this clear-cut approach cannot be applied to every case, for the criterion so established may itself be so imprecise that different decision-makers, each acting rationally, might reach differing conclusions when applying it to the facts of a given case.
Notes on key cases Edwards v Bairstow  AC What matters is not the linguistic precision of the drafter but whether issues of legality, rationality and procedural propriety can be addressed by an independent and impartial tribunal. Paul Daly November 29, The present is such a case. Once the criterion for a judgment has been properly understood, the fact that it was formerly part of a range of possible criteria from which it was difficult to choose and on which opinions might legitimately differ becomes a matter of history.
It precluded the court from entertaining any complaint at any time about the determination.