THE DECISION IN ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION
BY
IGATA, CLEMENT CHINEDU
Table of Cases
Anisminic Ltd V Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147, (1969) 2 WLR 163....................................................................................................1
Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179.....................11
Ridge v Baldwin (1961) 2 All E.R. 523: (1961) 2 WLR 1054………………….6
R. V. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex P. Shaw (1951) 1 K.B. 711: (1952) 1 K.B. 338…………………………………………………...13
Saluwa v Kabir (2011) 1 NWLR (pt. 1232) 417..................................................9
Table of Contents
WHAT DID ANISMINIC DEDIDE?
ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION (1969) 2 AC 147, (1969) 2 WLR 163
Summary of the Facts
In this case, the appellants were a British company which owned property in Egypt which had been sequestrated by the Egyptian government after the Suez crisis. A sum of money was subsequently made available by the Egyptian government for distribution by the British government at their discretion. Determination of claims to this money was referred by the statute to the Foreign Compensation Commission, any such determination being final and not capable of being called into question in any court of law. The Commission heard the appellants’ case and held that they were not entitled to compensation, under the terms of the relevant order in council made under the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950. The order provided that a claim by an applicant was to be treated as having been established if the applicant was a person named in the treaty with the Egyptian government as owner of property, or was a successor in title of such a person, provided that the person so named and the successor in title were British nationals at specified dates. The appellants here were persons named in the treaty but they had since (while reserving the benefit of any claim to compensation) transferred the property to a successor who was not a British
IGATA, CLEMENT CHINEDU
Table of Cases
Anisminic Ltd V Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147, (1969) 2 WLR 163....................................................................................................1
Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179.....................11
Ridge v Baldwin (1961) 2 All E.R. 523: (1961) 2 WLR 1054………………….6
R. V. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex P. Shaw (1951) 1 K.B. 711: (1952) 1 K.B. 338…………………………………………………...13
Saluwa v Kabir (2011) 1 NWLR (pt. 1232) 417..................................................9
Table of Contents
WHAT DID ANISMINIC DEDIDE?
ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION (1969) 2 AC 147, (1969) 2 WLR 163
Summary of the Facts
In this case, the appellants were a British company which owned property in Egypt which had been sequestrated by the Egyptian government after the Suez crisis. A sum of money was subsequently made available by the Egyptian government for distribution by the British government at their discretion. Determination of claims to this money was referred by the statute to the Foreign Compensation Commission, any such determination being final and not capable of being called into question in any court of law. The Commission heard the appellants’ case and held that they were not entitled to compensation, under the terms of the relevant order in council made under the Foreign Compensation Act, 1950. The order provided that a claim by an applicant was to be treated as having been established if the applicant was a person named in the treaty with the Egyptian government as owner of property, or was a successor in title of such a person, provided that the person so named and the successor in title were British nationals at specified dates. The appellants here were persons named in the treaty but they had since (while reserving the benefit of any claim to compensation) transferred the property to a successor who was not a British