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.
|Published (Last):||20 June 2007|
|PDF File Size:||6.57 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The appellants then sold the mining properties to an Egyptian government-owned organisation called TEDO in The tribunal, vommission, 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.
There were two important issues on the appeal to the Court of Appeal and later, the House of Lords. Section 4 4 of the Foreign Compensation Act stated that: This was a so called “ouster clause”.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission  2 AC , House of Lords – Law Trove
But they had some hope or prospect of getting something after relations between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Republic returned to normal. This could have been a direct payment to them by the Egyptian Government: And similarly with regard to damage done by the Israeli forces there might have been some payment made by the Israeli Government.
The next material event was the making of a treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Republic on 28th February That treaty provided for the return to British subjects of their sequestrated property excepting properties sold between 30th October and 2nd August Sinai Mining was the name of the Appellant company before its name was changed to Anisminic. It is not clear what was meant by “subject to a special arrangement”. It is not disputed that at that stage the Appellants had no legal right to claim to participate in that sum.
The most the Appellants had was a hope that they would receive some part of it. This case arises out of the making of an Order in Council: These orders were made under powers contained in the Foreign Compensation Act 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.
They also submitted a separate claim in respect of damage done by the Israeli forces. 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.
It also establishes that any error of law by a public body will result in its decision being ultra vires. Posted by Anjani Leelarathna at 7: Newer Post Older Post Home.