W4 - legitimate expectation

The case of ex parte Coughlan put beyond doubt that the courts would be prepared to enforce substantive legitimate expectations.

While it was originally the case that the courts would only recognise procedural legitimate expectations, this ground of review has subsequently expanded to include the review of substantive legitimate expectations.

The only circumstance in which a procedural legitimate expectation can arise is where a public body promised or represented that a particular procedure would be followed. (correct)

The difference between a procedural and a substantive legitimate expectation is that the former concerns an expectation that a certain procedure will be followed, whereas the latter concerns an expectation that a substantive benefit will be conferred.

The legitimacy of an expectation depends upon all of the following five factors being satisfied: clarity; legality; agency; knowledge; and reliance.

An expectation will not be legitimate where the public body which made the representation had a mistaken belief it was under a statutory duty to do what it had originally promised to do.

In order to form a legitimate expectation, a promise, policy or practice must be expressed or configured clearly. What amounts to clarity is an objective test and will be determined by the courts in the context of the given case. (correct)

A promise cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation if it was made by an agent acting on behalf of a public authority, rather than by the public authority itself.

In ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd the court confirmed that in order for a promise to amount to a legitimate expectation it had to be clear, unambiguous, and devoid of relevant qualification.

In ex parte Liverpool Taxi Operators’ Association the Court of Appeal held that the local authority was unable to depart from the assurance to the Association that it would not increase the number of taxi licenses in the area without hearing representations from the Association.

A representation can be contained in a government policy, as exemplified by the case of AG of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu.

In the case of Rashid, although the court found that the Home Office had committed numerous errors which led to unfairness, it also found that Rashid’s expectation was not legitimate because initially, he had no knowledge of the policy that he retrospectively sought to rely upon. (correct)

<p>The courts have determined that public authorities will always be required to fulfil procedural legitimate expectations.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>Recent developments in case law demonstrate that for the ground of legitimate expectation, the courts are increasingly moving towards a proportionality in assessing whether a public authority has lawfully frustrated a legitimate expectation.</p> Signup and view all the answers

<p>In Nadarajah and Abdi Laws LJ confirmed that proportionality is now an independent, stand-alone ground of domestic judicial review.</p> Signup and view all the answers