Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission
[1969] 2 AC 147
판결 이유
An ouster clause in a statute purporting to exclude judicial review of a tribunal's decisions cannot protect decisions made in excess of jurisdiction. Any error of law by a tribunal renders its decision a nullity, which means the ouster clause has nothing to protect.
사실관계
Anisminic's property in Egypt was sequestrated. The company claimed compensation from the Foreign Compensation Commission. The FCC rejected the claim, and the statute provided that FCC determinations 'shall not be called in question in any court of law'. Anisminic sought judicial review.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that the FCC had made an error of law that took its decision outside its jurisdiction. Since the purported 'determination' was a nullity (not a real determination at all), the ouster clause did not protect it. Lord Reid effectively collapsed the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law.
주요 인용문
"It has sometimes been said that it is only where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity. But in cases since then the courts have extended the word 'jurisdiction' to mean not only that the tribunal must have authority to enter on the inquiry, but that it must not have given its decision in a manner which is contrary to natural justice."
— Lord Reid
후속 처리
A landmark constitutional case on the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. Established that ouster clauses will be interpreted restrictively. The principle was affirmed in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019].