Effect of non-observance of natural justice
Effect of Non-Observance of Natural Justice
What is Natural Justice?
Natural justice refers to the fundamental procedural fairness required in administrative and judicial decision-making. It protects individuals from arbitrary, unfair, or biased decisions by public authorities.
Two Core Principles of Natural Justice:
Nemo judex in causa sua
“No one should be a judge in their own cause.”
Prohibits bias or conflict of interest.
Audi alteram partem
“Hear the other side.”
Requires the decision-maker to give a fair hearing to the affected party before making a decision.
Effect of Non-Observance of Natural Justice
When a public authority or tribunal fails to observe natural justice, the affected party can challenge the decision.
The typical legal consequences include:
Invalidation or quashing of the decision by courts.
Remand or re-hearing of the case.
Sometimes compensation or other remedies depending on the jurisdiction.
Non-observance renders the decision void, voidable, or ultra vires (beyond power).
Landmark Cases Explaining the Effect of Non-Observance of Natural Justice
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts:
Chief constable Ridge was dismissed without a hearing.
He challenged his dismissal on grounds of natural justice.
Court’s Decision:
The House of Lords held that dismissal without a proper hearing violated natural justice.
The decision was declared null and void.
Significance:
Established that natural justice is fundamental in administrative decisions.
Administrative actions taken without following these principles are liable to be quashed.
2. Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179
Facts:
A teacher was dismissed by a Board without giving reasons or an opportunity to defend.
Court’s Decision:
The House of Lords held that natural justice requires giving the person affected notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Failure to observe this renders the dismissal unlawful.
Significance:
Reinforces the audi alteram partem rule.
Emphasizes that fair procedure is mandatory.
3. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997
Facts:
Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee for investigation, despite a statutory provision requiring consideration.
Court’s Decision:
Held that the Minister’s refusal was unlawful and ultra vires.
The decision breached principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Significance:
Demonstrates that discretionary power must be exercised fairly.
Non-observance of justice principles can render decisions invalid.
4. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
Facts:
A magistrate who had a financial interest in a firm involved in the case sat on the bench.
Court’s Decision:
The judgment was quashed on the ground of apparent bias.
Significance:
Established the principle of nemo judex in causa sua.
Even the appearance of bias violates natural justice and invalidates decisions.
5. Khera v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] AC 309
Facts:
Immigration appeal tribunal failed to disclose certain documents to the appellant.
Court’s Decision:
Held that withholding material relevant to the appellant breached natural justice.
Significance:
Highlights the duty of fairness and disclosure of evidence.
Non-observance can invalidate the decision.
6. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts:
Prisoners were not given reasons for the Home Secretary’s decision affecting their parole.
Court’s Decision:
Held that there was a duty to provide reasons in such cases as a matter of fairness.
Significance:
Expands the scope of natural justice to include the right to reasons.
Failure to provide reasons can make decisions susceptible to challenge.
Summary of Effects of Non-Observance of Natural Justice
| Effect | Explanation | Case Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Quashing of decision | Decision is declared invalid and void | Ridge v Baldwin |
| Remedy of re-hearing | Matter sent back for fresh decision | Padfield |
| Voidability due to bias | Biased decision declared void | R v Sussex Justices |
| Requirement for fair hearing | Failure to provide hearing results in invalidity | Board of Education v Rice |
| Requirement for disclosure | Withholding evidence breaches fairness | Khera v Home Secretary |
| Right to reasons | Not providing reasons can breach natural justice | ex parte Doody |
Conclusion
Non-observance of natural justice in administrative decision-making has serious consequences:
It fundamentally undermines the legitimacy and legality of administrative actions.
Courts are vigilant in upholding natural justice to protect individuals from arbitrary and unfair treatment.
Violations generally lead to decisions being quashed or set aside, ensuring administrative accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments