Question: 'The decision in Anisminic was a constitutional revolution, but one purchased at the price of intellectual coherence.' Discuss.
---
Introduction
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission is widely regarded as the most significant judicial review case of the twentieth century. By holding that virtually all errors of law are 'jurisdictional' and thus reviewable despite an ouster clause, the House of Lords expanded the scope of review and asserted the judiciary's role as guardian of legality. This essay evaluates whether Anisminic was indeed revolutionary, and whether its conceptual foundations are coherent. It will argue that Anisminic effected a profound shift in the constitutional balance between Parliament, executive, and judiciary, but that its reasoning rests on a legal fiction that has generated doctrinal instability.
I. The revolutionary character of Anisminic
Anisminic overturned the orthodox distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors. Previously, courts reviewed only 'preliminary' or 'collateral' questions; errors within jurisdiction were unreviewable. Lord Reid's speech reformulated 'jurisdiction' so broadly—encompassing wrong questions, irrelevant considerations, procedural unfairness, and possibly even Wednesbury unreasonableness—that the category of non-jurisdictional error was all but abolished.
This was revolutionary in three respects. First, it dramatically expanded the scope of judicial oversight. Tribunals and administrators could no longer insulate their legal interpretations from scrutiny. Second, it neutralised ouster clauses: because a legally erroneous 'determination' was no determination at all, such clauses protected nothing. Third, it asserted a constitutional principle: courts, not Parliament or the executive, have the final say on questions of law (South Yorkshire Transport).
II. Intellectual incoherence? The fiction of ultra vires
Yet Anisminic's reasoning is vulnerable to critique. The majority purported to interpret the Foreign Compensation Act and the relevant Order, concluding that the FCC had misconstrued the Order and thus exceeded jurisdiction. But as Lord Morris (dissenting) observed, this involved treating every error of law as jurisdictional—a conceptual sleight of hand.
The problem is this: if jurisdiction means 'lawful authority', then of course an unlawful decision is outside jurisdiction. But this renders the concept circular. It does not explain why courts, rather than tribunals, should determine what the law requires. The ultra vires doctrine purports to ground review in legislative intent, but there is no evidence Parliament intended the expansive review Anisminic introduced. Indeed, Parliament enacted an ouster clause to prevent such review.
Critics such as Lord Carnwath (dissenting in Privacy International) and academic commentators (e.g., Forsyth) argue that the Anisminic fiction is unsustainable. If Parliament clearly intends to exclude review, the courts' duty is to respect that intent, not to rewrite it.
III. The common law constitutionalist response
Defenders of Anisminic offer a different account. On this view, judicial review does not rest on legislative intent but on constitutional principle. The rule of law demands that executive action be subject to legal accountability. Courts enforce this principle because it is fundamental to the constitutional order, not because Parliament wills it.
This position (articulated by Craig, Elliott, Allan) explains why ouster clauses are construed narrowly: they derogate from a constitutional norm and thus require clear words. It also explains why review extends to prerogative and non-statutory powers. However, it raises the spectre of judicial supremacism. If review is constitutionally entrenched, can Parliament abolish it? And if not, what becomes of sovereignty?
IV. Subsequent instability: Racal, Page, Cart
Anisminic's conceptual tensions have generated doctrinal instability. Racal sought to preserve a distinction between inferior tribunals (fully reviewable) and superior courts (not reviewable for non-jurisdictional error). Page acknowledged that anomalous categories (Visitors) escaped Anisminic. Cart applied a restrictive threshold to Upper Tribunal JR, effectively reintroducing deference for some tribunal decisions.
These cases suggest that Anisminic did not, in fact, abolish the jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional divide. Rather, it shifted the line. The result is a complex, somewhat unprincipled patchwork: full review for most tribunals, limited review for superior courts and Upper Tribunal refusals of permission, and legislative override (Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022) in some contexts.
V. Conclusion
Anisminic was undoubtedly revolutionary. It empowered courts to police administrative legality with unprecedented vigour and signalled the judiciary's constitutional confidence. But the price has been intellectual incoherence. The ultra vires fiction strains credulity; the common law alternative challenges sovereignty. Subsequent case law has struggled to reconcile Anisminic's ambitions with institutional and practical realities. Whether the law can achieve a stable settlement—or whether it will continue to oscillate between judicial assertiveness and legislative pushback—remains an open question.
---
Examiner's perspective: This essay is well-structured, engages directly with the question, and balances doctrinal exposition with critical analysis. To achieve a first-class mark, ensure you cite specific passages from cases and name leading scholars. Avoid overgeneralisation and acknowledge nuance (e.g., not all commentators agree Anisminic was incoherent). Comparative or empirical insights (e.g., Cart JR statistics) can also strengthen your argument.