WEEK 5 ADMIN (Substantive Protection for Legitimate Expectation (Hamble ~…
WEEK 5 ADMIN
Substantive Protection for Legitimate Expectation
Hamble ~ Reliance not necessary, the court’s duty is to protect the interest of those individuals whose expectation of different treatment has a legitimacy which in fairness outtops the policy choice which threatens to frustrate it.
Coughlan ~ Care home case. Whether there was a sufficient overriding reason to justify a departure from the legitimate expectation. Normally such a representation would have the form of a contract.
Niazi ~ Assurance has to be pressing and focused if there is no assurance, then there were procedural protections. Cannot apply to every policy, generally when there has been a substitute of a policy. A specific undertaking given to a group or individual is needed for substantive.
Begbie ~ Abuse of power is the root concept in the legitimate expectation case. An election promise does not bind the elected minister. Reliance is not necessary but is strong evidence of a legitimate expectation.
Bibi ~ Wrong belief in a legal obligation led to expectation, this then becomes a mandatory relevant condition.
Nadarajah ~ Proportionality test for balancing the expectation, Laws requirement of good administration.
BAPIO ~ Test for legitimacy is whether on a fair reading of a promise it would have been reasonably understoof by those to who it was made. Government Ministers could create expectation of another based on all being part of the government.
Paponnette ~ Confirm this test. Seems to be a protection but also because it was not a mandatory relevant consideration.
Wheeler ~ Parliamentary privilege protects from legitimate expectation.
Bancoult ~ Must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous assurance.
Mandalia ~ Even though not aware till after sought legitimate expectation from general principle, seem to be unclear about this.
Procedural Protection for Legitimate Expectation
Schmidt ~ Scientology case. Denning adds that there can be a legitimate expectation to be heard under natural justice.
Liverpool Taxi ~ Reliance on a statement made meant that the Taxi firm had a right to be heard, considering the history of the situation.
Baker ~ Care home case. Superfluous to contend there is a legitimate expectation to act fairly, there is an existing duty. Categories include substantive expectations protected substantively, substantive protected procedural and procedural protected procedural.
Ng Yuen Shui ~ Clear legitimate expectation to be heard from a promise.
Where a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty. The authority must have considered that it would be assisted in discharging its duty fairly by any representations from interested parties and as a general rule that it correct.
Luton BC ~ No promise which gave rise to a substantive expectation and thus no reliance and capability to find protection.
Khan ~ Published circular creates legitimate expectation.In enforcing the following criteria there is clearly a practical result of protection to legitimate expectation.
US Tobacco ~ In requiring procedure for fair contemplation at consultation for legislation actually quashed legislation.
Rowland ~ Generally ultra vires assertion is not a legitimate expectation.
Stretch ~ However, these expectations are a possession under the ECHR and are hence entitled to damages when frustrated.