The principle of legitimate expectations in administrative decision-making
📘 The Principle of Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law
📌 What is Legitimate Expectation?
The principle of legitimate expectations is a doctrine in administrative law that protects individuals against unfair changes in public authority decisions when they have relied on a representation or consistent practice.
It ensures that public bodies act fairly, especially when people have been led to expect a certain treatment based on a promise, representation, or established practice.
🔍 Types of Legitimate Expectations
Procedural Legitimate Expectation
The expectation that a person will be consulted or heard before a decision is made.
Substantive Legitimate Expectation
The expectation that a benefit or favorable treatment will continue (e.g., a license, subsidy, or policy).
⚖️ Legal Basis
While not a constitutional right, legitimate expectation is rooted in the rule of law, fairness, and non-arbitrariness in public decision-making.
Courts consider:
Whether there was a clear promise or regular practice.
Whether the person relied on it reasonably.
Whether the authority acted unfairly in departing from it.
📚 Key Case Laws (Detailed)
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service
(GCHQ Case, UK, 1985)
Facts:
Government employees at GCHQ were banned from joining trade unions without consultation, despite a previous practice of consultation.
Issue:
Did the employees have a legitimate expectation to be consulted?
Holding:
Yes. The House of Lords recognized procedural legitimate expectations, but held that national security overrode the duty to consult.
Reasoning:
The decision was made without prior consultation, contrary to established practice.
A legitimate expectation can be overridden by public interest or national security.
Significance:
First major case establishing legitimate expectation in UK law.
Showed courts could review administrative fairness.
2. Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu
(Hong Kong, Privy Council, 1983)
Facts:
The Hong Kong government had announced that illegal immigrants would be interviewed before deportation.
Ng Yuen Shiu was deported without an interview.
Issue:
Was there a procedural legitimate expectation of an interview?
Holding:
Yes. The government’s public representation created a legitimate expectation that an interview would be held.
Reasoning:
Authorities are bound by their own policies if they create expectations.
Unfair to deviate from announced procedures without justification.
Significance:
Confirmed that government statements and policies can give rise to legitimate expectations.
3. R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan
(UK, 2001)
Facts:
Ms. Coughlan, a disabled woman, was promised a “home for life” at a care facility.
The authority later decided to close the home.
Issue:
Was there a substantive legitimate expectation?
Holding:
Yes. The court ruled in favor of Ms. Coughlan.
Reasoning:
The promise was clear, specific, and made to an individual.
There was no overriding public interest to justify breaching it.
Significance:
Landmark case on substantive legitimate expectations.
Courts may enforce promises unless strong public interest justifies reversal.
4. R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd
(UK, 1990)
Facts:
Taxpayers received informal guidance from the Inland Revenue and relied on it for tax planning.
The Revenue later changed its stance.
Issue:
Could taxpayers rely on representations made by tax authorities?
Holding:
Yes, if the representation is clear, unambiguous, and made by a competent official.
Reasoning:
The Revenue must be consistent and fair when providing assurances.
Where representations induce reliance, they can create legitimate expectations.
Significance:
Established that even informal statements by public officials can bind the government.
Applied especially in tax and regulatory contexts.
5. Glencore Energy UK Ltd v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners
(UK, 2017)
Facts:
HMRC changed its policy on the treatment of certain excise duties, affecting Glencore's operations.
The company argued it had a legitimate expectation that the previous policy would continue.
Issue:
Was there a legitimate expectation of policy continuity?
Holding:
No. The court held that general policy changes, especially those of public importance, may not give rise to enforceable legitimate expectations.
Reasoning:
For a legitimate expectation to arise, there must be a specific promise or individual assurance.
General policies can change if reasonable notice is given.
Significance:
Confirmed that general policy changes are not always challengeable.
Reinforced distinction between general expectations and specific promises.
🔍 Elements Courts Consider
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Clear Promise/Practice | Was there a specific assurance, or repeated behavior from the public body? |
| Reliance | Did the individual rely on the promise to their detriment? |
| Fairness | Is it unfair or unreasonable to break the expectation? |
| Overriding Public Interest | Is there a compelling public reason to depart from the expectation? |
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Type of Expectation | Outcome | Key Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| GCHQ Case (1985) | Procedural | Denied (national security) | Legitimate expectations recognized, but overridden |
| Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) | Procedural | Granted | Public statements can create expectations |
| Coughlan (2001) | Substantive | Granted | Clear promise upheld absent public interest |
| MFK Underwriting (1990) | Substantive | Granted | Informal tax guidance can create expectations |
| Glencore (2017) | Substantive (policy) | Denied | General policy change ≠ legitimate expectation |
✅ Conclusion
The principle of legitimate expectation serves as a key check on administrative power. It protects individuals from arbitrary changes in government policy or procedure, especially when a public authority has:
Made a clear promise,
Established a consistent practice, or
Induced reasonable reliance.
However, legitimate expectations are not absolute. Courts balance them against public interest, statutory powers, and government flexibility in policymaking.
RELATED Blog
0 comments