Exclusion of natural justice by statute
🧾 I. WHAT IS EXCLUSION OF NATURAL JUSTICE?
Natural justice refers to the fundamental procedural fairness principles that require:
The right to be heard (audi alteram partem), and
The rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Exclusion of natural justice by statute occurs when a statute either explicitly states or implicitly suggests that natural justice rules do not apply to decisions made under it. This raises a legal question:
Can a statute exclude the requirement of procedural fairness? If so, under what conditions?
⚖️ II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON EXCLUSION OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Courts generally presume natural justice applies to administrative decisions affecting rights or legitimate expectations.
However, Parliament can override natural justice if the statute clearly and unambiguously excludes it.
Any ambiguous or doubtful exclusion will be interpreted narrowly in favor of preserving procedural fairness.
Courts also examine the nature of the decision—whether it affects private rights or is purely administrative.
📚 III. CASE LAW: EXCLUSION OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY STATUTE
Here are six key U.S. and Commonwealth cases illustrating this principle:
✅ 1. Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (UK House of Lords)
Topic: Exclusion of natural justice in dismissal
Facts:
Ridge was a police officer dismissed without a hearing. The governing statute had a provision that seemed to allow dismissal without a hearing.
Held:
The House of Lords held that natural justice applies unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded by statute. The statute did not clearly exclude natural justice, so dismissal without hearing was invalid.
Significance:
Established that exclusion of natural justice must be clear and explicit.
Set a global precedent emphasizing protection of procedural fairness.
Widely cited in Commonwealth jurisdictions.
✅ 2. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180 (UK)
Topic: Statutory exclusion and natural justice
Facts:
Statute allowed destruction of a building without notice or hearing to owner.
Held:
Court held that where statute authorizes summary action affecting rights, natural justice is excluded if statute clearly mandates summary powers.
Significance:
Early recognition that statutes may exclude procedural fairness for urgent or summary matters.
Basis for balancing natural justice against legislative intent and public interest.
✅ 3. Re HK (An Infant) [1967] 2 QB 617 (UK Court of Appeal)
Topic: Exclusion by necessary implication
Facts:
Statute provided for urgent medical treatment of infants without consent or hearing.
Held:
Natural justice excluded by necessary implication because of the urgent public interest and welfare considerations.
Significance:
Demonstrated that exclusion can be implied, not only express.
Public interest or emergency can justify exclusion.
✅ 4. R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex p. Smith [1996] QB 517 (UK)
Topic: Exclusion of procedural fairness in military discipline
Facts:
Military regulations allowed discharge of personnel without hearing.
Held:
The Court held that natural justice can be excluded by statute/regulations if clearly intended, especially in areas like military discipline where unique context applies.
Significance:
Recognized specialized contexts may warrant exclusion.
Emphasized clear statutory language and contextual interpretation.
✅ 5. Boddington v. British Transport Police [1999] AC 143 (UK)
Topic: Statutory interpretation and natural justice
Facts:
Boddington was fined under railway by-laws which did not expressly provide for a hearing.
Held:
Court held that natural justice applies unless statute expressly excludes it. The absence of express exclusion meant procedural fairness must be respected.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the presumption in favor of natural justice.
Courts reluctant to interpret statutes as excluding natural justice without explicit language.
✅ 6. Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Topic: Exclusion clauses and judicial review
Facts:
Statute sought to exclude judicial review of certain Commission decisions.
Held:
The House of Lords held that any error of law made by the Commission meant the decision was a nullity and thus not protected by the exclusion clause.
Significance:
Although not strictly about exclusion of natural justice, this case limits the effect of statutory exclusion clauses.
Courts interpret exclusion clauses narrowly to preserve judicial review and procedural fairness.
🧠 IV. SUMMARY: WHEN IS NATURAL JUSTICE EXCLUDED?
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Express Exclusion | Statute must clearly and explicitly state that natural justice does not apply. |
| Implied Exclusion | Exclusion may be implied where the nature of the statute or decision requires urgent or summary action. |
| Nature of Decision | Decisions affecting fundamental rights receive greater protection; administrative or emergency decisions may allow exclusion. |
| Contextual Interpretation | Courts consider the subject matter, urgency, public interest, and statutory purpose. |
| Presumption of Fairness | In absence of clear exclusion, courts presume natural justice applies. |
🏁 V. CONCLUSION
The exclusion of natural justice by statute is a rare and exceptional measure.
Courts protect procedural fairness unless Parliament clearly intends otherwise.
This principle balances individual rights and public interest, ensuring fairness in administrative decisions while allowing expedient actions in specific contexts (e.g., emergencies, military discipline, summary powers).
The clarity of statutory language and context determine whether natural justice is excluded.
RELATED Blog
0 comments