Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

legitimate expectation (Background (Contextual factors - do not…

- - - - Legitimate expectation arises
        
        Was it lawful for the LE to have been frustrated by the public body?
        
        If not, the LE is upheld - i.e. public body not allowed to resile from it
  - - - Legal certainty
        
        Trust in public bodies
        
        Participation
        
        Compliance
        
        FAIRNESS
    - - Administrative autonomy
        
        Adaptability
        
        Legality
        
        Avoid fettering of discretion
  - - - AG Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) - expectation of a full hearing
      - GCHQ (1984) - expectation of consultation with trade unions
  - - - R v SoS Home Department ex p Asif Khan (1984)
      - R v N & E Devon HA ex p Coughlan (2000)
  - - - Representation made to an individual/group
        
        Ex P Liverpool Taxi Fleet
        
        Ex P Coughlan
    - - Consistent pattern of behaviour by public body
        
        GCHQ
        
        Ex p Unilever
- - - - Ostensible authority?
      - South Bucks DC v Flanagan (2002)
- - - - Legitimate expectation
      - Requirement of consistency in application of public bodies
- - - - DM can decide to frustrate LE subject only to Wednesbury
      - Procedural LE
      - A substantive LE - if frustrated this would be unfair - ABUSE OF POWER
      - Post Coughlan - sliding scale
        
        "The more the decision challenged lies in what may... be called the macro-political field, the less intrusive will be the court's supervision" - per Laws LJ, ex p Begbie (2000)
        
        Sliding scale - variable intensity depending on nature of decision
        
        Macro-political = Wednesbury review
        
        Other = Balance between competing interests - fairness vs public interest - with higher intensity for individual promises
  - - - A significant countervailing public interest consideration applies - e.g. national security factor in GCHQ
  - - - Ex p Hamble Fisheries (1995)
        
        Sedley J - court to decide
        
        Irrespective whether procedural or substantive LE
        
        Balance = unfairness vs overriding public interest
      - Ex p Hargreaves (1997)
        
        Hamble = "heresy"
        
        Distinction between two kinds of LE IS important
        
        DM decides - subject only to "Wednesbury" review by court