Principles of Administrative Law
🔷 Core Principles of Administrative Law
1. Rule of Law
Principle: All public authorities must act within the limits of law. No one is above the law, including the state.
📌 Case: Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
Facts: Government officials entered Entick’s property and seized papers without legal authority.
Held: The court held that the government had no legal power to do so. Actions of the executive must be based on legal authority.
Significance: Established the fundamental principle that state actions must be legally justified. This case is foundational to the concept of constitutional government and the rule of law.
2. Doctrine of Ultra Vires
Principle: Administrative bodies must act within the powers (jurisdiction) granted to them by law. Any action beyond their power is ultra vires (beyond the powers) and is invalid.
📌 Case: R v Richmond-upon-Thames Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd [1992] 2 AC 48
Facts: The council charged fees for pre-planning consultations, although there was no statutory authority for such fees.
Held: The House of Lords held that the council acted ultra vires by imposing charges not authorised by statute.
Significance: Reinforced that public bodies cannot expand their powers without legal basis.
📌 Case: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513
Facts: The Home Secretary refused to bring a compensation scheme into effect and instead introduced a new one under prerogative powers.
Held: The court ruled that the minister's actions were inconsistent with the statute and therefore unlawful.
Significance: A powerful example of how even ministers must act within the boundaries of statutory powers.
3. Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness
Principle: Administrative decisions must be made fairly. Natural justice includes two key rules:
Nemo judex in causa sua – No one should be a judge in their own case (Rule against bias).
Audi alteram partem – Hear the other side (Right to be heard).
📌 Case: Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts: A police chief was dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Held: The dismissal was declared void due to breach of natural justice. He should have been given a chance to be heard.
Significance: Landmark case that revived and clarified the importance of natural justice in administrative decision-making.
📌 Case: Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
Facts: The Lord Chancellor ruled in a case in which he had a financial interest.
Held: The decision was quashed due to apparent bias.
Significance: Established the rule against bias. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
4. Duty to Give Reasons
Principle: Though not always a strict legal requirement, courts increasingly hold that giving reasons is a core component of fairness and transparency, especially where decisions affect rights.
📌 Case: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts: Prisoners challenged the Home Secretary’s refusal to disclose reasons for the length of their mandatory life sentence.
Held: The House of Lords held that fairness required the prisoners to be told the reasons.
Significance: Reinforced that in administrative decisions affecting rights or legitimate expectations, reasons must be given to allow meaningful challenge.
5. Legitimate Expectation
Principle: If a public body makes a promise or consistent past practice, individuals may have a legitimate expectation that it will continue or be honoured.
📌 Case: R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Facts: Miss Coughlan was promised a “home for life” in a care facility, but the authority later decided to close it.
Held: The court ruled that the promise created a substantive legitimate expectation, and it would be unfair to frustrate it without overriding public interest.
Significance: Shows that substantive expectations (not just procedural ones) can be protected by the courts.
6. Proportionality
Principle: Administrative action must not be more drastic than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Especially relevant in human rights cases.
📌 Case: R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
Facts: A prisoner’s legal correspondence was read during cell searches.
Held: The House of Lords held that this infringed the prisoner’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (private correspondence), and the interference was disproportionate.
Significance: This case incorporated proportionality as a standard in reviewing administrative actions, especially under the Human Rights Act 1998.
7. Judicial Review
Principle: Courts have the power to review the legality of decisions made by public bodies, but not their merits.
📌 Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ case)
Facts: The government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions without consulting them.
Held: The House of Lords accepted that even prerogative powers could be subject to judicial review, though in this case the decision was upheld due to national security.
Significance: A landmark case laying down the three grounds for judicial review:
Illegality
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Procedural impropriety
🔚 Conclusion
Administrative law principles ensure that governmental power is exercised responsibly, lawfully, and fairly. The key principles include:
| Principle | Key Case |
|---|---|
| Rule of Law | Entick v Carrington |
| Ultra Vires | McCarthy & Stone; Fire Brigades Union |
| Natural Justice | Ridge v Baldwin; Dimes |
| Duty to Give Reasons | Doody |
| Legitimate Expectation | Coughlan |
| Proportionality | Daly |
| Judicial Review | GCHQ Case |
Through these cases, courts ensure that administrative actions are not arbitrary, and individuals’ rights are protected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments