The principle of legitimate expectations in administrative decision-making
The Principle of Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law
What is Legitimate Expectation?
Legitimate expectation is a doctrine in administrative law that protects individuals when a public authority has made a clear, unambiguous representation or promise—either through explicit statements or established practice—creating an expectation that a certain procedure will be followed or a particular benefit granted.
If the authority then seeks to depart from this representation or practice without fair notice or reason, the affected person can challenge the decision as unfair or unlawful.
Types of Legitimate Expectations
Procedural Legitimate Expectation: Expectation of a certain procedure (e.g., a hearing or consultation) before a decision is changed.
Substantive Legitimate Expectation: Expectation of a specific benefit or outcome based on a public authority’s promise.
Rationale
Fairness and Good Faith: Public authorities should not act arbitrarily or unfairly after inducing certain expectations.
Accountability: Ensures transparency and consistency in administrative actions.
Rule of Law: Prevents misuse of power and promotes trust in public administration.
When Does Legitimate Expectation Arise?
When a public body makes a clear, unambiguous promise or adopts a consistent practice.
The expectation must be reasonable and induced by the authority’s own conduct.
The claimant must have relied on the expectation.
Remedies for Breach
Courts may require the authority to fulfill the expectation.
Or, if the expectation is overridden for overriding public interest, at least a fair hearing or consultation must be provided.
Key Case Law on Legitimate Expectations
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) — The GCHQ Case [UK]
Facts: Employees at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) were promised consultation before changes to their conditions. The government later imposed changes without consultation.
Issue: Whether the government was bound to consult due to a legitimate expectation.
Holding: The House of Lords recognized the doctrine of legitimate expectation but held that national security concerns justified overriding the expectation.
Significance: Established the modern doctrine of legitimate expectation and clarified that public interest may override it.
2. R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2001) [UK]
Facts: Miss Coughlan, a severely disabled woman, was promised a "home for life" by a health authority but later was moved against her will.
Issue: Whether the health authority breached a substantive legitimate expectation.
Holding: The Court held the promise created a substantive legitimate expectation that was enforceable; the health authority’s decision was quashed.
Significance: Distinguished between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations; substantive promises can be binding.
3. Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) [Hong Kong]
Facts: A policy of deporting illegal immigrants was changed without prior notice, affecting persons who had been promised leniency.
Issue: Whether the change breached legitimate expectations.
Holding: The Court held that where a legitimate expectation arises, the public authority must act fairly, including giving notice and hearing.
Significance: Affirmed the procedural aspect of legitimate expectation and the need for fairness.
4. Pannick v. Sterling Housing Association (1988) [UK]
Facts: Tenants were promised they would not be evicted without a hearing; eviction was ordered without one.
Issue: Whether a procedural legitimate expectation existed.
Holding: The court held that tenants had a legitimate expectation to a hearing before eviction.
Significance: Reinforced the need to honor procedural promises.
5. Fayed v. United Kingdom (1994) [European Court of Human Rights]
Facts: Mr. Fayed was promised consideration of his application for a casino license, but the license was denied without fair process.
Issue: Whether legitimate expectations and fair hearing rights were violated.
Holding: The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decisions impacting individuals’ interests.
Significance: Broadened the principle’s application under human rights law.
6. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: The State government altered its recruitment policy without notice after promising fixed recruitment rules.
Issue: Whether the change breached legitimate expectations of candidates.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that candidates had a legitimate expectation to recruitment under the earlier rules and directed adherence.
Significance: Recognized legitimate expectations as a part of administrative fairness in Indian law.
7. R. v. Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Begbie (1999) [UK]
Facts: Students were promised funding continuation but faced abrupt termination.
Issue: Whether this breached legitimate expectation.
Holding: The court emphasized that public bodies must honor clear promises unless overriding public interest justifies change.
Summary Table of Key Points
| Case | Type of Legitimate Expectation | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Council of Civil Service Unions | Procedural | Legitimate expectation recognized; can be overridden by public interest |
| R v. North and East Devon (Coughlan) | Substantive | Substantive promises can be binding |
| Attorney General of Hong Kong | Procedural | Must provide notice and hearing before changing policies |
| Pannick v. Sterling Housing | Procedural | Procedural fairness and hearing before eviction |
| Fayed v. UK | Procedural | Fair hearing under human rights law |
| Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi | Procedural/Substantive | Recruitment rules must be followed if promised |
| R v. Secretary of State (Begbie) | Procedural | Promises must be honored unless public interest overrides |
Conclusion
The principle of legitimate expectation is a vital tool ensuring fairness and accountability in administrative decision-making. It protects individuals from sudden, unfair changes in government policy or promises and requires authorities to act consistently, transparently, and justly.
This principle balances individual rights against public interests and is enforced by courts through judicial review, which may compel authorities to honor their promises or at least provide fair procedures before altering policies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments