6. Legitimate Expectation

Question 1

Liverpool Taxi Operators’ Association

Answer 1

Town clerk’s promise that it would not increase number of licensed taxis without hearing representations from the Association creates procedural LE

Question 2

Preston

Answer 2

Substantive LE possible in theory

Question 3

Greenpeace

Answer 3

White Paper promising ‘fullest possible consultation’ created LE

Question 4

GCHQ

Answer 4

Long-standing and settled practice for trade unions to be consulted by government before service conditions of staff were altered creates LE

Question 5

Unilever

Answer 5

Established practice over a period of 20 years for Unilever to pay full extent of its taxes after the ordinary deadline create LE

Question 6

MFK Underwriting

Answer 6

Promise must be ‘clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification’

Question 7

Bancoult

Answer 7

FO Press release stating that the population will be allowed to return subject to feasibility study does not amounted to clear representation that the islanders would be able to resettle, irrespective of the findings of the feasibility study

Question 8

Davis

Answer 8

Past practice must be so unambiguous, widespread and well-established as to carry within it specific commitment to applicants

Question 9

Begbie

Answer 9

No LE because opposition Labour party does not have authority to make promises regarding education

Detrimental reliance not essential, but will usually be present

Coughlan categories not hermetically sealed, but represent point on scale – lower intensity of review for decisions that lie within ‘macro-political field’

Question 10

Rowland

Answer 10

Environment Agency lacked authority to extinguish existing public right of navigation, so could not create LE

Question 11

BAPIO

Answer 11

Promise made by HO gives rise to LE that is binding on Department for education

Question 12

Flanagan

Answer 12

Possible for body that does not have the power to make a promise to create LE if it can be be deemed agent of body that does

Question 13

Bibi

Answer 13

Fact that refugees had not relied to their detriment on promise by council to provide them with permanent accommodation does not mean that there is no LE

Question 14

Walker

Answer 14

Applicant’s lack of knowledge of the original criteria in the compensation scheme meant there was no LE

Question 15

Rashid

Answer 15

There was LE that HS would apply his own policy on asylum uniformly, even though applicant didn’t actually know about this policy

Question 16

Khan

Answer 16

Public authority may change its policy, but only where there has been ‘serious consideration whether there is some overriding public interest’

Question 17

Findlay

Answer 17

LE had been frustrated when HS introduced new policy to deny parole to certain classes of prisoners

Question 18

Hargreaves

Answer 18

Court can enquire into fairness of procedure followed but not of substance – it could only interfere with the decision on matters of substance if it was Wednesbury unreasonable

Question 19

Schmidt

Answer 19

Concept of LE defined - action could lie on the basis of public authority’s own actions giving rise to a legitimate expectation

Question 20

Wheeler

Answer 20

Promise to hold referendum on proposed EU Constitution treaty lay so deep in macro-political field that the court should not enter relevant area at all

Question 21

Nadarajah and Abdi

Answer 21

Proportionality

Question 22

Pham

Answer 22

Recent case placing great emphasis on proportionality

Question 38

Coughlan

Answer 38

Express promise generating substantive LE

On general policy matters, only Wednesbury unreasonableness
Where LE is promise to more narrowly defined group, fairness can be considered, but must be weighed against any overriding interests in change of policy