Administrative Law - Bulankulama Case

Bulankulama and Others vs. Secretary, Minister of Industrial Development and Others 

 (2000) 3 Sri L. R. 243

 

 

nq,kal=,u iy fjk;a yh fofkla  t  l¾udka; ixj¾Ok wud;HdxYfha f,alï iy fjk;a y;a fofkla

úksiqre wurisxy

úksiqre jvqf.dvmsáh

úksiqre .=Kfialr

 

;SrKh ( 2000 cQks ui 02 osk

m%Yak.; jQ lreKQ(

Ø  lDIsl¾uh w;ska fmdfydi;a Y%S ,xldfõ W;=re ueo m<df;a tmamdj, m%foaYfha msysgd we;s mdIdKuh fmdiafmaÜ ixÑ;hka läkñka .fõIKh lsÍu i|yd fm!oa.,sl iud.ula iy rch w;r Lksc øjH wdfhdack .súiqulg kshñ;j ;sîu

Ø  wêOdß;djfhka hq;= leKSï l%shdj,shla o f*diamßla iy i,a*shqßla weisâ ksmojk hka;%d.drhla ;%sl=Kdu,h fjrf<A msysgqùug kshñ;j ;sîu

Ø  ksYaÑ;j oelaúh fkdyels ;rï úYd,;ajfhka hq;= .fõIK m%foaYhka iy ieliSfï m%foaYhla mej;Su

Ø  n,mEug yiqjk lDIsld¾ñl bvï ysñ tu m%foaYfha mÈxÑlrejka yh fofkl= fm;aiula bÈßm;a lsÍu

Ø  y;a jk fm;aiïlre ft;sydisl úydrhl úydrdêm;s ùu tfiau tu úydrh kv;a;= lrk l=Tqre bvï o wjodkug ,la ùu

Ø  jHdmD;sh uyck hym; wruqKq lr.;a tlla fkdjk nj;a fm!oa.,sl iud.ul hym; fjkqfjka we;s lrk ,oaola nj;a tu.ska Y%S ,xldjg iaÓridr wd¾Ól jdis w;a fkdjk njg;a fm;aiïlrejka lreKq bÈßm;a lsÍu

Ø  ;jo jHdmD;sh we;s lsÍug rch ;Èkau ne|S we;s njo tneúka .súiqu w;aika lsÍfuka miqj mdßißl n,mEï ;lafiarejla wmCImd;S f,i yd ksis mßÈ isÿ fkdlrk njg fm;aiïlrejka lreKq bÈßm;a lsÍu

Ø  wdKavql%u jHjia:dfõ  12^1&   14^1& ^W&  iy 14 ^1& ^W!& hk jHjia:djka hgf;a we;s uQ,sl whs;sjdislï W,a,x>kh ùug w;Hdikak njg fm;aiïlrejka lreKq bÈßm;a lsÍu

Ø  kS;shg wkql+,j l%shd lrk njg ne|Sï .súiqula we;s lsÍug jHdmD;sfha md¾Yjlrejka W;aidy lsÍu

Ø  mdßißl n,mEï ;lafiarejla iïnkaOfhka cd;sl mßir mkf;a we;s ùê úOdk iy ta hgf;a mkjk ,o fr.=,dis fkdi<ld yeÍug lghq;= lsÍu

 uq,a Nd.fhaoS wkqrdOmqr Èia;%slalfha N+ úoHd ióCIK lrk w;r;=f¾oS lrk ,o mi ms<sn| ióCIKj,oS Wiia .Kfha f*dis, ,egrhsÜ f,i i,lk ,o oE we;a; jYfhka u w.afkah ldnfkag wemghsg f,i fidhd .kakd ,o'S tf,i ñkr,a wemghsÜj, iajNdjfhka olakg ,enqKq mdIdKuh fmdiafmaÜ ksêhla wkqrdOmqr Èia;%slalfha tmamdj, m%foaYfhka N+ ÈHd ióCIK fomd¾;fuka;=jg fidhd .ekSug yels ùh'

tmamdj, ksêh m%fhdackhg .ekSfï ld¾hh Èia;%sla ixj¾Ok iNdj,g mjrd oSug 1974 oS ;SrKh lrk ,oS'  Èia;%sla ixj¾Ok iNdj,g mjrd oS ;snQ tu jHdmD;sh miqj l¾udka; wud;HdxYh úiska msysgqjk ,o mQ¾K f,i rchg wh;a iud.ula jk iSudiys; ,xld fmdiafmaÜ iud.u fj; mjrd .kakd ,oS'

tmamdj, we;s fmdiafmaÜ ksêh m%fhdackhg .ksñka fmdiafmaÜ fmdfydr ksmoùug taldnoaO jHdmdrhla msysgq ùu i|yd fhdackd le|jñka 1992 foieïn¾ ui foaYSh yd úfoaYSh mqj;am;aj, oekaùï m< lrk ,oS' ta i|yd fhdackd yhla ,enqKS' leìkÜ uKav,h u.ska m;a lrk ,o lñgqjla úiska we.hSï jd¾;d i,ld ne,Sfuka miqj weußld tlai;a ckmofha *%SfmdaÜ uelafudrdka ßfidaia mdÜk¾ia iud.u iu.  idlÉPd meje;aùu i|yd leìkÜ uKav,fha wkque;sh iys;j ;SrKh lrk ,oS'

wêlrK n,h

5fjks iy 7 fjks j.W;a;rlrejka fjkqfjka fmkS isá kS;S{ uy;=kao "Tjqka iu. yjq,a jq ksfhdacH fid,sisg¾ fckrd,ajrhd o" Y%S ,xldfõ iajdNdúl iïm;aj, ’Ndrlre’ rch jk nj;a " fuu wêlrKh fkdjk nj;a ie,lr isáfhah' ’tneúka rch ksjerÈj l%shd lrk ;dla ÿrg wêlrKh rcfha ;;a;ajfhys,d lghq;= fkdl< hq;=hs’ ' fuhska woyia jkqfha wêlrKh wjidk m%;sM,h iu. tlaflda tl. Úh yels njh's ke;skï tyl. Úh fkdyels njhs' flfia fj;;a rch ’Ndrlre’ f,i ksjerÈj l%shd lr we;akï wêlrKh úiska Bg ueÈy;a fkdjk njhs ' fuysoS tlaflda uyck Y=N idOk kvqlr fyda ke;skï úYajdih lv lsÍfï kvqlrj,g iïnkaO ldrKhla ms<sn| j fm;aiïlrejka fuu wêlrKfha uQ,sl whs;sjdislï yd iïnkaO wêlrK n,h wheo we;'

wdKavql%u jHjia:dj m%ldY lrkqfha mrudêm;Hh ck;dj i;= jk nj;a " th wkai;= lsÍu fyda w;ayeÍu l< fkdyels nj;ah' ^3 jk jHjia:dj&

 ksfhdað; m%cd;ka;%jdoh mj;sk rgla f,i ’uyck;dj ,nd fok n,h l%shd;aul lrkqfha " we;eï ksYaÑ; ld¾hhka bIaG lsÍug ndr lrkq ,enQ mqoa.,hka ud¾.fhks' wdKavql%u jHjia:dj m%ldY lrkqfha ck;djf.a jHjia:dodhl n,h md¾,sfuka;=j úiska o ck;djf.a úOdhl n,h Y%S ,xld ckdêm;sjrhd úiska o ck;djf.a wêlrK n,h wksl=;a foa w;r wdKavql%u jHjia:dj hgf;a m%;sIaGdmkh lr ;yjqre lr we;s wêlrKh u.ska o l%shd;aul lrk njhs' ^4 jk jHjia:dj&

tï iS fï;d lu,kd;a ^1977& 1 tia iS iS 388 hk kvqj Wmqgd olajñka fm;aiïlrejkaf.a W.;a kS;S{jreka  ck;dj i;= iajdNdúl iïm;a rch úiska Tjqka fjkqfjka ’Ndrhla ’ f,i ord isák njg 5 jk iy 7 jk j.W;a;rlrejka fjkqfjka fmkS isá W.;a kS;S{ uy;=ka m, l< woyig tl. jqj;a wêlrKhg ta iïnkaOfhka bgq lsÍug lsis÷ ld¾hNdrhla fkdue;sh hk u;hg tl. fkdjk ,oS' 

iaÓridr ixj¾Okh

fhdað; Lksc øjH wdfhdack .súiqfï ye|skaùfï fufia i|yka fõ  ’rch Y%S ,dxlsl ck;djf.a wd¾Ól ixj¾Okh ÈhqKq lsÍug n,dfmdfrd;a;= jk w;r tu wruqKq bgq lr .ekSug Y%S ,xldfõ fmdiafmaÜ Lksc iïm;a nqoaêu;a f,I ixj¾Okh iy .fõYkh lsÍu i|yd Èß .ekaùug iy wkqn, oSug lghq;= lrhs’ 

;u mdßißl yd ixj¾Ok m%;sm;a;s j,g wkqj hñka ;u iïm;aj,ska Wmßu m%fhdack ,nd .ekSfï whs;sjdislu ksielju rchlg we;' ^1972& tlai;a cd;Skaf.a iafgdlafydaï m%ldYkfha 21 jk uQ,O¾uhg wkqj iy ^1992& tlai;a cd;Skaf.a ßfhdao cekhsfrda m%ldYkfha 2 jk uQ,O¾uhg wkqj nqoaêu;a ie,iqïlrKh hkak ixj¾Okh ùfï wjYH;djh;a " mßirh wdrCId lsÍfï iy jeä ÈhqKq lsÍfï wjYH;djh;a w;r .egqï ixis|ùu i|yd w;HjYH fuj,ula f,i l%shd lrhs' ^iafgdlafydaï m%ldYkfha 14 jk uQ,O¾uh& iaÓridr ixj¾OkhloS ie,ls,su;a úh hq;= lreKq w;r m%Odk ;ekla ysñjkqfha ukqIHhdgh'  Tjqkag iajNdj O¾uh iu. ñ;%YS,Sj M,odhS Ôú;hla .; lsÍug iy fi!LH iïmkak Ôú;hla .; lsÍug ysñlu we;' ^ßfhdao cekhsfrda m%ldYkfha 1 jk uQ,O¾uh& iaÓridr ixj¾Okh <.d lr .ekSug hdfïoS mßir ixrCIKh ixj¾Ok ls%hdoduh ;=< fjka l< fkdyels ld¾hh Ndrhla bgq lrk w;r mßirh wdrCId lsÍu ixj¾Ok l%shdodufhka  yqfol,d fldg ie,lsh fkdyelsh'  ^ßfhdao cekhsfrda m%ldYkfha 4 jk uQ,O¾uh&

udf.a woyig wkqj fhdað; .súiqu i,ld ne,sh hq;af;a by;ska i|yka lrk ,o uQ,O¾uhkag wkqj hñka h' md¾,sfïka;= mk;la l=uk wdldrfhka úh hq;=o hkak iïnkaOj iafgdlafydaï m%ldYkfha iy ßfhdao cekhsfrda m%ldYkfha olajd we;s uQ,O¾uhka kS;Hkql+, ne|Sula we;s fkdlrhs' tajd ’,sys,a kS;s’ muKla f,i ie,lsh yelsh ' kuq;a tlai;a cd;Skaf.a ixúOdkfha idudðlfhl= f,i Y%S ,xldj úiska tajd fkdi,ld yeßh hq;= fkdfõ' ;jo udf.a u;hg wkqj tlS uQ,O¾uhka m%ldYs;ju jHjia:.; lsÍfuka fyda by< f,aLk.; wêlrK u.ska iy úfYaIfhkau fY%aIaGdêlrKh u.ska Tjqkaf.a ;SrKj,oS tajd fhdod .ekSfuka tajd foaYSh kS;sfha fldgila njg m;aùu ksid fyda tlS uQ,O¾uhka u.ska ne|Sula we;s úh yelsh'

See:

http://www.elaw.org/node/1295

http://www.lawnet.lk/docs/case_law/slr/HTML/2000SLR3V243.htm 

 

Administrative Law - Anisminic Ltd vs. Foreign Compensation Commission

ANISMINIC LTD v. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION [1969] 2 AC 147, [1969] 2 WLR 163

 

 

 

I.                   INTRODUCTION

ANISMINIC LTD v. FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION is an important House of Lords decision in the area of English administrative law, establishing in particular that any error of law made by a public body will make its decision a nullity ^Y=kH;dj &and that a statutory exclusion clause does not deprive ^wysñ lrkjd& the courts from their jurisdiction in judicial review unless it expressly states this.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

As a result of the Suez Crisis some mining  ^m;,a& properties of the appellant Anisminic located in the Sinai peninsula were seized ^;ykï lrkjd& by the Egyptian government before November 1956. The appellants then sold the mining properties to an Egyptian government-owned organisation called TEDO in 1957.
In 1959, a piece of subordinate ^wm%Odk& legislation was passed under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 to distribute compensation paid by the Egyptian government to the UK government with respect to British properties it had nationalised.^cki;=& The appellants claimed that they were eligible ^iqoqiqlï we;s&for compensation under this piece of subordinate legislation, which was determined by a tribunal ^m¾Ioh&(the respondents in this case) set up under the Foreign Compensation Act 1950.
The tribunal, however, 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.

III. ISSUES

There were two important issues on the appeal to the Court of Appeal and later, the House of Lords. The first was straightforward^wjxl&: whether the tribunal had made an error of law in construing the term "successor of title" under the subordinate legislation.
The second issue was more complex and had important implications ^jHx.d¾:h& for the law on judicial review. Even if the tribunal had made an error of law, the House of Lords had to decide whether or not an appellate court had the jurisdiction to intervene ^ueosy;a fjkjd& in the tribunal's decision. Section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 stated that:

"The determination by the commission of any application made to them under this Act shall not be called into question in any court of law".This was a so called "ouster clause".

IV. THE HOUSE OF LORDS' DECISION
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] APP.L.R. 12/17
Before Lords Reid; Morris; Pearce; Wilberforce; Pearson (17th December 1968)

LORD REID:

MY LORDS,
1. In 1956 the Appellants owned ^i;=$ ysus& a mining property in Egypt which they claim^whs;sjdislï lshd mdkjd& was worth over £4,000,000. On the outbreak^me;srSu& of hostilities^hqoaO$igka& in the autumn ^ir;a iD;=j&year it was occupied ^ika;l l<d& by Israeli forces and damaged to the extent ^m%udKh& of some £500,000. On 1st November 1956 property in Egypt belonging to British subjects ^hg;a& was sequestrated ^w,a,d .;a;d&by the Egyptian Government and on 29th April 1957, after the Israeli forces had withdrawn ^miq neiaid&, the Egyptian Government authorised ^n,h ,nd ÿkakd&a sale of the Appellants' property and it was sold to an Egyptian organisation referred to in this case as T.E.D.O.

2. The Appellants' property had included a large quantity^m%udKhla& of manganese ore ^uex.kSia f,day iys; mia& and steps were taken by them to dissuade ^fkdlsSÍug leu;s lrjd .kakjd& their customers from buying ore from T.E.D.O. This seems to have embarrassed^wmyiqjg m;a l<d& the Egyptian authorities, and on 23rd November 1957 an agreement was made between the Appellants, T.E.D.O. and the Sequestrator ^foam, ;ykï lrkakd&General whereby the Appellants purported^woyia l<d& to sell to T.E.D.O. for a price of £500,000 their whole business in Egypt, but this was not to include any claim which the Appellants might be entitled to assert against any government authority other than the Egyptian government, as a result of loss suffered by, or of damage to or reduction ^ydhkh$wvq lsÍu& in the value of" their business or assets^j;alï& during the events of October and November 1956.

3. Beyond ^Tíng& the fact that the Appellants received the sum of £500,000 the effect of the agreement is not very clear; for their property had already been sold to T.E.D.O. by the Sequestrator. Before the agreement was made the Appellants had no legal right to sue ^kvq lSug& in Egypt either for the return of their property or for compensation for its loss. 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: or, if the method was followed which the British Government had adopted in earlier cases, the
Egyptian Government might pay a lump ^l=Üáh$ fkdleue;af;ka bjid isákjd& sum of compensation to the British Government to cover all claims by British subjects, and then it would be in the discretion of the British Government to determine ^ksYaph lr .ekSug& how any such sum should be distributed among claimants ^ysñlï mdkakka&. And similarly with regard to damage done by the Israeli forces there might have been some payment made by the Israeli Government. It is not disputed^jdo l<d& that by this agreement the Appellants gave up or assigned ^mjrd fokjd& to T.E.D.O. any claim they might have to receive compensation directly from the Egyptian Government : but I think that they did not give up or assign^kshu lrkjd& any claim, hope or prospect they might have  to receive something from the British or Israeli Governments.

4. 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 1959. That treaty provided for the return to British subjects of their sequestrated property excepting properties sold between 30th October 1956 and 2nd August 1958: those excepted properties were listed in Annex E which included the property of "Sinai Mining (subject to a special arrangement)". 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". Under the treaty the United Arab Republic
paid to the British Government the sum of £27,500,000 in full and final settlement of claims of a kind mentioned in Article IV. It is not disputed that at that stage the Appellants had no legal right to claim to participate in that sum. The disposal ^yudr lsrSu& of that sum was in the discretion of the British Government. The most the Appellants had was a hope that they would receive some part of it.

5. This case arises out of the making of an Order in Council: - The Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Determination and Registration of Claims) Order 1959, S.I. 1959 No. 625. That Order has now been superseded^wj,x.= lrkjd& by a similar order, S.I. 1962 No. 2187 and I shall refer throughout to this later order. These orders were made under powers contained in the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. 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.

6. The Appellants duly^iqoqiq mrsÈ& submitted a claim under this Order to the Respondent Commission. They also submitted a separate claim in respect of damage done by the Israeli forces. These claims were opposed ^úreoaO j ke.S isáhd& by the Legal Officer of the Commission and after sundry^jsúO& procedure including a long oral hearing the Commission on 8th May 1963 made a Provisional Determination that:
"... the above-named Applicants, Anisminic Limited, fail to establish a claim under the Egypt Order aforesaid ^Wla;& in respect of the matters referred to in paragraph 2(a) of the Amended Answer AND THAT the Application in respect of such claims be and is hereby dismissed BUT THAT the claim in respect of damage referred to in paragraph 2(b) of the Amended Answer is fit for registration under Article 8 of the said Order in a sum to be hereafter determined."

7. 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.

8. Browne J. on 29th July 1966 made a declaration that the Respondent's Provisional Determination was a nullity and that the Respondents are under a statutory duty to treat the Appellants' first claim as established. The Court of Appeal on 5th April 1967 set aside the judgment of Browne J. and the Appellants now seek to have his judgment restored ^m%;sIaGdmkh l<d&....

V. RULING

By a 3-2 majority, the House of Lords decided that section 4(4) of the Foreign Compensation Act did not preclude^ndOd lrkjd& the court from inquiring whether or not the order of the tribunal was a nullity, and accordingly it decided that the tribunal had misconstrued^jrojd f;areï .kakjd& the legislation (the term "successor in title" kS;Hkql+, wkqm%dma;slhd), and that the determination by the defendant tribunal that the appellant did not qualify to be paid compensation was null^wNsY=kH$wj,x.=&, and that they were entitled to have a share of the compensation fund paid by the Egyptian government.

VI. EFFECT OF THE DECISION

The decision illustrates the courts' reluctance ^wleue;slu& to give effect to any legislative provision that attempts to exclude their jurisdiction in judicial review. Even when such an exclusion is relatively clearly worded, the courts will hold that it does not preclude them from scrutinizing ^ishqï f,i mÍCId lsÍfuka& the decision on an error of law and quashing^ksYam%Nd lsÍu& it when such an error occurs.
It also establishes that any error of law by a public body will result in its decision being ultra vires.

See Further:

www.nadr.co.uk/articles/published/.../Anisminic%201968.pdf