Legitimate expectation
- Created by: jesskeayy
- Created on: 06-05-19 11:13
View mindmap
- Procedural impropriety & legitimate expectation
- Two types of claim: 1. claim a decision maker has failed to follow legislated procedures. 2. claim a decision maker has failed to with common law requirements of procedural fairness
- Statutory procedure: distinction between mandatory and directory requirements
- 2.38 legislation can impose express procedural conditions/ requirements that must be satisfied before powers are exercised
- 1. consult local authority representatives. 2. publish decision in draft. 3. make due injury. 4. consider objections before decision making
- Mandatory requirements, failure to comply may make decisions invalid
- 1. consult local authority representatives. 2. publish decision in draft. 3. make due injury. 4. consider objections before decision making
- 2.38 legislation can impose express procedural conditions/ requirements that must be satisfied before powers are exercised
- Procedural fairness: 1. decision maker be neutral and independent. 2. those adversely affected by decisions are given a fair hearing
- Fairness: R v Sec of State for Home Department ex parte Doody
- Home secretary had powers to determine murder sentences. Doody was able to request reasons for the sentence, reasoning was necessary
- Legitimate expectations:
- Where claimants argue public bodies have done/ said things that have acted in accordance with past practice, policies and promises
- GCHQ: did workers have a legitimate expectation to know the information? given that it regarded national security, no
- LE may be generated by public bodies, they must be respected, unless there's overriding public interest in the body going back on their conduct
- R v Department of Education ex parte Begbie-
- Applicant offered place in assisted education. Labour government abolished the scheme in 97
- Was decision a breach of legitimate expectation? No, offers cannot create LE
- Applicant offered place in assisted education. Labour government abolished the scheme in 97
- Must be clear & unequivocal-
- ABCIFER v Sec of State for Defence
- Scheme set up to compensate British interned by Japanese in WW2
- Criteria changed for who it was available to- only those born in UK. Announcement not clear enough to create LE
- Scheme set up to compensate British interned by Japanese in WW2
- ABCIFER v Sec of State for Defence
Comments
No comments have yet been made