contained in the Foreign Compensation Act That Act set up the Respondent, the Foreign Compensation. Commission, to deal with compensation . Edwards v Bairstow [] AC The classic case on review of decisions Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [] 2 AC (HL): The Foreign. ANISMINIC LTD v. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION is an important House of Lords decision in the area of English administrative law.

Author: JoJokasa Gulkree
Country: Syria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 24 March 2011
Pages: 476
PDF File Size: 15.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.60 Mb
ISBN: 505-8-45052-776-9
Downloads: 20095
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktizil

The Court of Appeal held that the new evidence should be admitted if it was relevant to an appeal on a question of law. Any error of law that could be shown to have been made by them in the course of reaching their decision on matters of fact or of administrative policy would result in their having asked themselves the wrong question with the result that the decision they reached would be a nullity.

That Act set up the Respondent, the Foreign Compensation Commission, to deal with compensation payments made by the Governments of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia but it also provides for the Commission acting should there be future compensation agreements with foreign governments.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Notes on key cases

And similarly with regard to damage done by the Israeli forces there might have been some payment made by the Israeli Government. So far, no room for controversy. Their argument was simply that the Commission misinterpreted the criteria for compensation, yet the House of Lords issued the declaration.

This page was last edited on 1 Mayat You are commenting using your Twitter account.

Even when such an exclusion is moderately clearly worded Finally, it can be assumed that this approach significantly extended the traditional doctrine of judicial error. She could cook for herself some days more than half the timebut not always. Appellants argued the nationality of successor was irrelevant where the claimant was the original owner. The claim which was dismissed was the main claim with which this case is concerned, and the claim which was held fit for registration was a claim in respect of the damage done by the Israeli forces.


Please subscribe or login to access full text content. There were two important issues on the appeal to the Court of Appeal and later, the House of Lords. But not just any error of fact will lead to unfairness. You are commenting using your Facebook account.

Find a textbook Find your local rep. Roreign is not disputed that at that stage the Appellants had no legal right to claim to participate in that sum.

Sign in via your Institution.

Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

The present is such a case. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. The next material event was the making of a treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Republic anismlnic 28th February Their property was sequestered by Egyptian government as a result of the Sues Crisis.

Publications Pages Foregn Pages. Under the terms of the commmission agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Law Trove for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. All subjects Law Public Law Learn about: The House of Lords overturned that decision. The appellants then sold the mining properties to an Egyptian government-owned organisation called TEDO in Thirdly, the appellant or his advisers must not been have been responsible for the mistake.

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 also establishes that any error of law by a public body will result in its decision being ultra vires. 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 document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb. It is not clear what was meant by “subject to a special arrangement”. If it makes such an error, it goes outside its jurisdiction and certiorari will lie to correct it. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: If foreugn facts of any particular case are fairly capable of being so described, it seems to me that it necessarily follows that the determination of the Commissioners, Special or General, to the effect that a trade does or does not exist is not “erroneous in point of law”; and, if a determination cannot be shown to be erroneous conpensation point of law, anissminic statute does not admit of its being upset by the Court on appeal.


By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. A piece of subordinate legislation passed in under the Foreign Compensation Act E sought asylum in Britain, claiming that he would be tortured if he were returned to Egypt, because he was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Law Student: Administrative Law – Anisminic Ltd vs. Foreign Compensation Commission

Edwards v Bairstow [] AC Ina piece of subordinate legislation was passed under the Foreign Compensation Act to distribute compensation paid by the Egyptian government to the UK government with respect to British properties it had nationalised. By a majority, the House of Lords decided that section 4 4 of the Foreign Compensation Act did not preclude the court from inquiring whether or not the order of the tribunal was a nullity, and accordingly it decided that the tribunal had misconstrued the legislation the term “successor in title”and that the determination by the defendant tribunal that the appellant did not qualify to be paid compensation was null, and that they were entitled to have a share of the compensation fund paid by the Egyptian government.

The Inland Revenue assessed the profit as subject to tax; the General Commissioners held that the venture was not an adventure in the nature of trade.

Section 4 4 of the Foreign Compensation Act stated that:. Related Links Test yourself:

Author: admin