Procedural fairness – hearing rule
Procedural Fairness – Hearing Rule
Hearing Rule:
It mandates that before an administrative decision adversely affecting a person’s rights, interests, or legitimate expectations is made, that person must be given:
Notice of the case against them.
A reasonable opportunity to respond (oral or written).
A fair chance to present evidence or arguments.
An impartial decision-maker.
This principle ensures decisions are made fairly, transparently, and justly.
Key Case Law on the Hearing Rule
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (UK)
Facts:
A chief constable was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held:
The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unlawful because the officer was denied a hearing. The hearing rule requires a chance to be heard before adverse decisions.
Significance:
This landmark case established the hearing rule as a core part of natural justice.
2. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (Australia)
Facts:
Kioa’s visa was canceled by immigration authorities without being given a chance to respond to adverse allegations.
Held:
The High Court held that procedural fairness required the person to be informed of adverse material and given a chance to respond before cancellation.
Significance:
This case expanded the hearing rule to include notice of adverse material, emphasizing fairness even where statutes are silent.
3. Bishop v Mining Warden (1986) 160 CLR 1
Facts:
An application for a mining lease was refused without a hearing.
Held:
The High Court ruled that where the decision affects substantial interests, the hearing rule applies, and a party must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Significance:
Shows that the hearing rule applies in administrative decisions affecting significant rights or interests.
4. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Lam’s visa was canceled based on information he was not given the chance to respond to.
Held:
The High Court reiterated that procedural fairness includes the hearing rule and that affected persons should know adverse information to respond.
Significance:
Confirms that fairness requires opportunity to respond to all material affecting the decision.
5. Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Facts:
An applicant was refused a visa without being told of adverse reports.
Held:
The Federal Court held this violated the hearing rule; the decision was set aside.
Significance:
Reinforces the need for transparency and an opportunity to answer adverse claims.
Summary Table
| Case | Principle Established | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Right to be heard before adverse decision | Hearing rule core to natural justice |
| Kioa v West (1985) | Notice of adverse material and chance to respond | Expanded hearing rule scope |
| Bishop v Mining Warden (1986) | Hearing required for substantial interests | Applies where rights/interests affected |
| Ex parte Lam (2003) | Full opportunity to respond to all adverse material | Procedural fairness includes full disclosure |
| Drake v Minister (1979) | Transparency and chance to answer adverse reports | Procedural fairness violation overturned decision |
Summary
The hearing rule ensures decisions are made after giving affected persons a fair opportunity to know the case against them and respond. It applies widely in administrative law and protects fundamental fairness, transparency, and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments