Taxi Driver Online

The law requires that each individual has a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly by any and all administrative bodies. It is therefore incumbent on each and everyone of you who has a grievance with a council or anyone similar to bear this in mind in any present or future proceedings.
____________________________

Legitimate expectations.

A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though there is no other legal basis upon which he could claim such treatment1. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority2, including an implied representation3, or from consistent past practice4. In all instances the expectation arises by reason of the conduct of the decision maker5, and is protected by the courts on the basis that principles of fairness, predictability and certainty should not be disregarded6.

The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences; it may give standing to seek permission to apply for judicial review7, it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the consequence of the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so8, or it may mean that, if the authority proposes to act contrary to the legitimate expectation, it must afford the person either an opportunity to make representations on the matter, or the benefit of some other requirement of procedural fairness9. A legitimate expectation may cease to exist either because its significance has come to a natural end or because of action on the part of the decision maker.

In appropriate circumstances the existence of a legitimate expectation may require a public body to confer a substantive, as opposed to a procedural, benefit. In such cases the courts will not permit the public body to resile from the representation if to do so would amount to an abuse of power.
________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Application and scope of the duty to act fairly.

The situations in which a duty to act fairly or in accordance with natural justice will arise cannot be exhaustively listed and have tended to expand as the case law has developed. In order to establish that a duty to act fairly applies to the performance of a particular function, it is no longer necessary to show that the function is analytically of a judicial character or that it involves the determination of a lis inter partes, or the determination of a personal right.

It may now be presumed that the duty will apply to the administrative decision making process, absent of any express provision to the contrary, unless the interest affected is insignificant or remote. In most instances the real issue concerns the content of the duty to act fairly rather than whether or not it applies at all.

The content of the duty will be assessed by reference to a wide range of factors including the nature of the individual's interest and the impact of the decision upon it, the type of decision being given, whether the decision is preliminary or final, the subject matter of the decision, and the terms of any relevant statutory provisions. Thus a presumption that natural justice must be observed will arise more readily where there is an express duty to decide only after conducting a hearing or inquiry, or where the decision is one entailing the determination of disputed questions of law and fact.

A duty to act in accordance with natural justice will arise when a decision directly affects any propriety or personal right or interest. For example, decisions which affect a person's livelihood, legal status where that status is not merely terminable at pleasure, family or personal life, which deprive a person of liberty, or property rights, or another legitimate interest or expectation, or which impose a penalty on him. By contrast, the conferment of a wide discretionary power exercisable in the public interest may be indicative of the absence of an obligation so to act.

Where a discretionary power to encroach upon individual rights is exercised, factors to be taken into account in deciding what fairness requires in the exercise of the power include the nature of the interests to be affected, the circumstances in which the power falls to be exercised, and the nature of the sanctions, if any, involved. The content of the duty to act fairly will normally be very limited where the authority is in the course of exercising a function not culminating in a binding decision, but that may not be the case if the wording of the grant of powers or the context indicates that a fair hearing ought to be extended to persons likely to be prejudicially affected by an investigation or recommendation.

Specific case law has evolved in relation to committees of clubs, political parties, trade unions, other voluntary organisations, professional and ecclesiastical bodies and academic institutions exercising functions of a disciplinary or similar nature involving the imposition of a substantial sanction, even though their own rules do not oblige them to function in the same manner as courts or tribunals. However, the categories relating either to the types of body to whom the duty will apply, or to the requirements of the duty in each context are not closed. The application and scope of the duty must be determined having regard to all material circumstances.

1 The leading cases include Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40, [1963] 2 All ER 66, HL;

R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc [1987] QB 815, [1987] 1 All ER 564, CA;

Leech v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1988] AC 533, [1988] 1 All ER 485, HL.
_________________________