Procedural fairness in licensing decisions
Procedural Fairness in Licensing Decisions
What is Procedural Fairness?
Procedural fairness, also known as natural justice or due process, refers to the requirement that decisions made by administrative bodies, including licensing authorities, must be made fairly. This ensures that the affected parties receive a fair hearing and that the decision-making process is unbiased, transparent, and just.
In the context of licensing decisions, which often affect an individual’s livelihood or property rights, procedural fairness is critical. Licensing authorities must follow fair procedures before granting, refusing, suspending, or revoking licenses.
Key Principles of Procedural Fairness:
Right to a Fair Hearing (Audi Alteram Partem): The person affected by the decision must be given an opportunity to present their case.
Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): The decision-maker must be impartial.
Reasoned Decision: The authority should provide reasons for the decision, especially if adverse.
Notice: The person should be informed in advance about the case against them and the nature of the proceedings.
Right to Legal Representation: In some cases, parties may be allowed or entitled to have legal counsel.
Evidence and Transparency: Decisions should be based on relevant evidence, not irrelevant or extraneous considerations.
Important Case Laws on Procedural Fairness in Licensing Decisions
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (House of Lords)
Facts: Ridge, a police officer, was dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Holding: The House of Lords held that procedural fairness (natural justice) required that the person be given a hearing before dismissal.
Significance: This case established the principle that decisions affecting rights or legitimate expectations must afford a fair hearing. Although it was about dismissal, the principle applies equally to licensing decisions — a license holder must be given an opportunity to respond before revocation or refusal.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (The GCHQ Case)
Facts: The government revoked the rights of employees to join a trade union at GCHQ without consulting them.
Holding: The House of Lords held that procedural fairness can be limited in cases involving national security but ordinarily applies.
Significance: This case clarified that judicial review of administrative decisions involves an examination of procedural fairness but also recognizes certain exceptions (e.g., national security). For licensing authorities, this means procedural fairness is a general rule but may have limits in exceptional cases.
3. R v Liverpool Corporation, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association [1972] 1 WLR 1321
Facts: The Liverpool Corporation, which controlled taxi licenses, refused new licenses without giving reasons or hearing objections.
Holding: The court held that the corporation must give reasons and an opportunity to be heard before refusing licenses.
Significance: This case highlights the necessity of giving reasons and the right to be heard in licensing decisions. The license applicants must know why their license was refused to challenge the decision properly.
4. Re HK (An Infant) [1967] 2 QB 617
Facts: A licensing authority refused to grant a license without providing reasons.
Holding: The court held that reasons are an essential part of procedural fairness, especially where rights are affected.
Significance: While the case was more general in natural justice terms, it is often cited in licensing to stress the importance of transparency and explanation in decisions affecting individuals.
5. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Facts: A licensee was promised a stable position (in terms of service), and the authority later reneged without fair process.
Holding: The court recognized the concept of legitimate expectation where authorities are bound by their previous conduct and promises.
Significance: Licensing authorities must be careful not to arbitrarily change their stance or policy without fair warning or hearing, especially when the licensee has a legitimate expectation. This injects fairness into licensing by protecting reliance on established policies.
6. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts: Prisoners were not told the reasons for their tariff terms.
Holding: The House of Lords held that individuals must be told the reasons for decisions affecting them, allowing them to respond.
Significance: In licensing, refusal or revocation decisions should be accompanied by reasons, respecting the right to be heard and understood.
Summary of Procedural Fairness in Licensing:
| Principle | Case Reference | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be heard | Ridge v Baldwin | Must be given opportunity to present case before adverse decision |
| Exceptions (e.g., security) | Council of Civil Service Unions | Fairness applies generally but not in all circumstances |
| Right to reasons | Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators | Reasons must be given to enable challenge |
| Transparency | Re HK (An Infant) | Reasons ensure transparency in decision-making |
| Legitimate expectation | ex parte Coughlan | Promises or policies can create binding expectations |
| Reasons for decisions | ex parte Doody | Reasons must be disclosed to affected party |
Conclusion
Procedural fairness in licensing decisions ensures that affected parties have a fair process, including notice, hearing, impartiality, and reasons. The courts have consistently enforced these principles through landmark cases, emphasizing that licensing authorities cannot act arbitrarily or without due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments