- Cited — LA (Albania), R (on the application of) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) 2023-11-16
“…e denial of fundamental justice” test. It is only necessary for the purposes of this judgment to record that in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 the House of Lords had held that an ouster clause was ineffective to prevent a judicial review of the Compensation Commission’s error of law in taking into acc…”
- Cited — Mazhar v The Lord Chancellor 2019-10-02
“…e jurisdiction and jurisdictional errors was largely rendered obsolete by the decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, at least in the case of inferior courts and tribunals. Where therefore no appeal is possible, it may nevertheless be possible to seek judicial review of such …”
- Cited — ASK, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-07-16
“…r because such jurisdiction has been wrongly exercised has been irrelevant to the issue of lawfulness since Anisminic Limited v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 established that both species of error render an executive act unlawful and a nullity (see Lumba at [66]). The nature of the unlawfulness does not matter, so l…”
- Considered — Guled, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2019-02-12
“…h March 2015. He considered the provisions of sections 3 and 5 of the Immigration Act 1971 and the cases of Anisminic Limited v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, R (Lumba) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 12 and R (George) v SSHD [2014] UKSC 28…”
- Considered — TN (Vietnam) & Anor, R. (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor 2018-12-19
“…Earlier in his opinion, at 154, Lord Irvine had considered the decision of the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, which had made obsolete the historic distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and errors of law which went to a body’s jurisdiction. It had…”
- Cited — The Secretary of State for the Home Department v SM (Rwanda) 2018-12-11
“…moved on since the days of Lord Denning’s famous dissent in Ridge v Baldwin [1964] QB 40. The House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 put paid to the suggestion that that there was a distinction in administrative law between orders or acts which were ‘void’ as opposed to merely ‘voidable’. An…”