Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law
I. Introduction
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is a principle in administrative law that protects individuals when a public authority, through its representations or established practices, leads a person to expect a certain procedure or outcome. When such expectations arise, the authority is generally required to act fairly by honoring the expectation or providing a fair procedure before acting otherwise.
This doctrine is rooted in the principles of natural justice and fairness and operates as a mechanism to hold administrative bodies accountable and prevent arbitrary changes in policy or procedure.
II. Types of Legitimate Expectation
Procedural Legitimate Expectation:
The expectation of a fair procedure (e.g., a hearing or consultation) before a decision adversely affecting a person is made.
Substantive Legitimate Expectation:
The expectation that a public authority will follow a certain substantive benefit, policy, or outcome promised or consistently practiced.
III. Elements of Legitimate Expectation
For legitimate expectation to arise, generally:
There must be a clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal representation or established practice by the public authority.
The representation must be made by an authorized person or body.
The individual relying on the expectation must have acted or refrained from acting based on that expectation (sometimes relevant).
It must be unjust or unfair to depart from the expectation without giving an opportunity to be heard or without good reason.
IV. Case Law Analysis
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (The GCHQ Case)
Context:
This landmark case is the foundational authority for the doctrine in UK law.
Facts:
Trade unions at GCHQ claimed a legitimate expectation of consultation before changes affecting their employment terms.
Holding:
The House of Lords recognized that a legitimate expectation of consultation existed.
The government, however, justified the breach on grounds of national security.
Established that legitimate expectation can be overridden by overriding public interest, but it requires justification.
Explanation:
This case firmly established the doctrine and clarified that legitimate expectations can be procedural or substantive.
2. R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Context:
A leading case on substantive legitimate expectation.
Facts:
Miss Coughlan was promised by the health authority that a care home would remain her “home for life,” but the authority later decided to close it.
Holding:
The Court held that the promise created a substantive legitimate expectation.
The authority could not frustrate this expectation unless there was an overriding public interest.
The promise was found binding, and breach was unlawful.
Explanation:
This case confirmed that courts can enforce substantive expectations and not just procedural fairness.
3. R v. Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115
Context:
Dealt with procedural legitimate expectation in education admissions.
Facts:
Applicants were promised a consultation on admissions policies but changes were made without such consultation.
Holding:
The Court held that procedural legitimate expectation entitled applicants to consultation before changes.
Failure to consult rendered the decision unlawful.
Explanation:
Reinforced that expectations of procedural fairness (like consultation) must be honored.
4. Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] AC 629
Context:
Early Commonwealth case emphasizing legitimate expectation principles.
Facts:
The government had a policy allowing illegal immigrants to stay temporarily, but later changed policy without warning.
Holding:
The Privy Council held that the applicants had a legitimate expectation of being allowed to stay temporarily.
The government had a duty to act fairly, including giving notice before changing the policy.
Explanation:
Illustrated that even in immigration and public policy, legitimate expectation imposes fairness obligations.
5. R (Bibi) v. Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607
Context:
A procedural legitimate expectation case involving housing allocation.
Facts:
Applicants were led to expect that their applications would be fully considered before eviction decisions were made.
Holding:
The Court held the council had a duty to provide a fair procedure.
Failure to give a proper hearing breached legitimate expectation.
Explanation:
Shows the doctrine’s role in protecting procedural rights in administrative decisions.
V. Summary Table of Key Case Principles
| Case | Type of Legitimate Expectation | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| GCHQ Case | Procedural | Legitimate expectation of consultation recognized |
| Ex parte Coughlan | Substantive | Courts can enforce substantive promises |
| Ex parte Begbie | Procedural | Right to consultation as procedural expectation |
| Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu | Procedural/Substantive | Fair notice required before policy change |
| R (Bibi) v. Newham | Procedural | Duty to provide fair hearing when expectation arises |
VI. Balancing Legitimate Expectation and Public Interest
The doctrine is not absolute. Courts balance the claimant’s expectation against:
The public interest, such as resource allocation or national security,
The need for flexibility in policy-making,
The authority’s reasons for departing from the expectation.
VII. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation protects individuals from unfair administrative practices by requiring authorities to honor clear promises or established practices, either by following fair procedures or by delivering substantive benefits promised.
It fosters fairness and trust in public administration but allows for flexibility when overriding public interests justify departure from expectations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments