Fairness in administrative action
Fairness in Administrative Action
What is Fairness in Administrative Action?
Fairness is a fundamental principle of administrative law that requires government agencies and officials to act justly and impartially when making decisions that affect individuals' rights, interests, or legitimate expectations.
Key Elements of Fairness
Natural Justice (Procedural Fairness): Includes the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
Reasonableness: Decisions must be rational and based on relevant evidence.
Transparency and Consistency: Procedures should be clear and applied equally.
Why Fairness Matters?
Fairness safeguards against abuse of power, protects individual rights, and promotes public confidence in administrative processes.
Core Principles of Fairness
Right to be heard (Audi alteram partem): Affected persons must have the opportunity to present their case.
Rule against bias (Nemo judex in causa sua): Decision-makers must be impartial.
Reasoned decisions: Administrative decisions should explain the rationale.
Legitimate expectations: Authorities must respect promises or established practices creating expectations.
Key Cases on Fairness in Administrative Action
1. Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
Facts: A police chief was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Holding: The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unlawful because the officer was not given a hearing.
Significance: Affirmed that procedural fairness is a constitutional requirement in administrative decisions affecting rights.
Impact: Established the right to a fair hearing before adverse administrative action.
2. Board of Education v Rice (1911)
Facts: A teacher was dismissed by an administrative body without clear reasons.
Holding: The court ruled that fairness requires giving reasons for decisions that affect individuals.
Significance: Emphasized the importance of transparency and providing reasons.
Impact: Grounds the principle that administrative decisions must be reasoned to ensure fairness.
3. R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924)
Facts: A magistrate involved in a case had a potential conflict of interest.
Holding: The court held that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
Significance: Established the rule against bias and the appearance of bias.
Impact: Strengthened impartiality as essential to fairness.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985)
Facts: The government banned GCHQ employees from union membership without consultation.
Holding: The House of Lords held that fairness requires consultation unless there are overriding national security reasons.
Significance: Developed the concept that legitimate expectations and procedural fairness apply to administrative decisions.
Impact: Expanded the scope of fairness to include consultation and legitimate expectations.
5. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2001)
Facts: A disabled woman was promised a lifetime residence in a care home, which was later withdrawn.
Holding: The court held that the promise created a legitimate expectation which was unfairly frustrated.
Significance: Firmly established the doctrine of legitimate expectation as a protection of fairness.
Impact: Protects individuals against sudden changes in administrative policy without proper notice.
6. Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)
Facts: A judge had a financial interest in a company involved in the case.
Holding: The decision was void due to the appearance of bias.
Significance: One of the earliest cases enforcing the rule against bias.
Impact: Reinforces that decision-makers must be free from conflicts of interest.
Summary Table: Fairness in Administrative Action
| Case | Year | Principle | Significance/Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ridge v Baldwin | 1964 | Right to a fair hearing | Procedural fairness essential before adverse action |
| Board of Education v Rice | 1911 | Reasoned decisions | Transparency through reasons required |
| R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy | 1924 | Rule against bias | Justice must be seen to be done |
| GCHQ Case | 1985 | Consultation & legitimate expectation | Fairness includes consultation, barring exceptional reasons |
| R v North and East Devon HA, ex parte Coughlan | 2001 | Legitimate expectation | Protects individuals from unfair administrative change |
| Dimes v Grand Junction Canal | 1852 | Appearance of bias | Decisions invalid if decision-maker is conflicted |
Conclusion
Fairness in administrative action is a cornerstone of administrative law ensuring that decisions impacting individuals are made impartially, transparently, and with respect for procedural rights. The key cases illustrate how courts have protected individuals against unfair administrative practices, reinforcing natural justice, legitimate expectations, and the right to be heard.
RELATED Blog
0 comments