100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectations Summary $10.71   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Administrative Law

Summary

Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectations Summary
 10 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Administrative Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the topic of legitimate expectations in Administrative Law. This document covers the distinction between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations, an analysis of whether we can sustain this distinction, and an analysis of whether there is a separate dut...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 6, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • administrative law
  • legitimate expectations
  • mfk
  • coughlan
  • nadarajah
  • niazi
  • conspicuous unfairness
  • duty to act consistently
  • mandalia
  • procedural legitimate expectations
  • substantive legitimate expectations

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Administrative Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Legitimate Expectations
Can we sustain the distinction between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations?
- Should we collapse procedural and substantive into one so that one set of tests apply?
- What is the test that applies when considering a substantive legitimate expectation?
o First stage is one of clarity – MFK.
 Has the applicant established that the LE has in fact arisen? Insists on a high
level of clarity.
 MFK – only recognise a LE if an assurance is “clear, unequivocal, and devoid
of relevant qualification.”
 This is a difficult test to overcome – cannot be any kind of ambiguity
in phrasing or caveating e.g., “normally” or “generally”.
o Second stage relies on justification.
 Can be hands off in macro.
 Authority for two different approaches:
 Coughlan – asked whether disappointing the expectation was so
unfair as to amount to an abuse of power.
 Nadarajah – proportionality.
 R v Education and Employment Secretary, ex parte Begbie – Gov issued a
whole series of promises that it would continue to fund places in grammar
schools to people who had those places funded in primary school and going
into secondary schools – but misread statute and turns out they didn’t have a
power to do this.
 Case failed because can’t have LE of something Gov can’t deliver.
 BUT – court goes on to say that even if LE had arisen, question of
when Gov should fund these places is so in macro political sphere
that degree of scrutiny that courts should apply should be much
lighter touch – polycentric.
 Macro/micro = proxy for varying standard of review that depends on
context of case.
- The existence of a strict distinction between procedural and substantive LE was questioned in
Nadarajah.
o Laws LJ stated that “the dichotomy between procedure and substance has nothing to
say about the reach of the duty of good administration” and that “the difference
between the two is not a difference of principle.”
o BUT – this argument is dubious:
 Elliott – looking at procedural and substantive LE as closely related aspects
of a single doctrine is wrong.
 Procedural LE are seen as extensions or offshoots of the CL duty to
act fairly.
 If this is how procedural legitimate expectations are understood, then
the place of substantive legitimate expectations needs to be
considered separately, given that it cannot itself be characterised as
nothing more than a further extension of the CL duty to act fairly.
- Distinction between procedural and substantive:
o Both easy and hard to draw.
 Easy – clearly legitimate expectations which relate to process.
 Fair hearing – legitimate expectation to be given notice/make
representations.
 Consultation before a big shift in policy takes place.
 Hard – there are cases that sit in grey area:
 Badger Trust – promise that a pilot of badger culling would not be
extended beyond initial pilot region without independent board
approving of extension.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.71. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

59325 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.71
  • (0)
  Add to cart