ws5 Flashcards
Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852)
An interest which may lead to financial gain falls into the direct interest (rule against bias) category
Pinochet [1999]
- Lord Hoffman agreed with a judgement, became apparent he was chairman of Amnesty International Charity Ltd which was linked to Amnesty International, which had been involved in proceedings.
- Extended direct interest to cases of non-pecuniary interests, where the decision-maker is involved in promoting the same cause as a party to the case.
Porter v Magill [2002]
- House of Lords decided that by calling a premature press conference suggesting the outcome following initial results, Magill did not create an indirect interest.
- House of Lords said that the following test should be applied in cases of indirect bias:
- Would a fair-minded and impartial observer conclude that there had been a real possibility of bias?
ex p Hook [1976]
Applied the Porter v Magill test, ruled indirect bias.
Board of Education v Rice [1911]
Lord Loreburn stated that there is a duty on decision-makers to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides.
McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978]
Established three categories of claimant:
- Forfeiture cases - where the claimant has been deprived of something he previously enjoyed.
- Legitimate Expectation cases - Where claimant seeks renewal or confirmation of some license etc. which he has held previously
- Application cases - Where the claimant is the first-time applicant
Depending on the category of claimant, they are entitled to expect more or less from their hearing for it to be deemed fair - e.g. the right to an oral hearing.
Ridge v Baldwin [1964]
- Ridge dismissed as Chief Constable of Sussex the day after his acquittal from court without any warning and no explanation
- Held that the outcome was of special importance as Ridge stood to lose (forfeit) his pension rights and livelihood.
- Established that fairness is required whenever an administrative decision affects someone’s’ rights, interests or legitimate expectations.
Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators [1972]
- Liverpool taxi license holders were given written assurance that they would be first consulted if the Council decided to grant more licenses.
- Council broke this promise, was deemed a breach of procedural legitimate expectation.
McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978]
The court found that as McInnes was a mere first-time application, the natural justice required of the Boxing Board of Control was only that it should act honestly and without bias.
Lewis v Heffer [1978]
- Court of Appeal held that officers of the Labour Party in Newham had not yet been dismissed, merely suspended.
- The ‘right to a fair hearing’ did not apply as the decision was only preliminary
Fairmount Investments Ltd [1976]
Natural justice requires that claimants in forfeiture cases should know the case against them and have the right to reply at each stage of the decision-making process.
ex p Benaim Khada,
In application cases, applicants were entitled to know the gist of the decision against them as the refusal of a license case doubt on their good character
ex p Cunningham [1991]
Court of Appeal ruled that natural justice requires a decision-maker should give reasons for a decision where a decision looks so wrong it ‘cries out for explanation’.
Hasan [2008
The law does not generally require public authorities to give reasons for their decisions.
Ex p Doody [1994]
- Where the impact on a person’s right is serious and the public interest requires the giving of reasons
- In this case applied as personal liberty was in question.
Citizens UK [2018]
Claimant has a right to reasons when relevant to challenging the legality of said decision.
Lloyd v McMahon [1987]
- Essentially, what fairness requires depends on the circumstances of each case;
- But, every claimant, regardless of the case category, is entitled to a hearing which is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Ex p St Germain (No 2) [1979]
- Generally, discretion as to whether cross-examination should be permitted, but if fairness required it, it should be permitted.
- In this case, prisoners were permitted cross-examination to contest hearsay evidence (as well as the calling of evidence and witnesses)
Bates v Lord Hailsham [1972]
Committee’s functions was legislative rather than judicial, so the rules of natural justice did not apply
The reason being that delegated legislation usually affects the public as a whole, rather than having a separate effect on individual’s rights. Fairness could not require that each member of the public should be heard before legislation is made.
Bradbury v Enfield [1967]
School did not provide the required notice of major reform to local school as required by Education Act 1944
Therefore, deemed non-compliance with the Act, and a breach of mandatory requirement
Coney v Choyce [1975]
- School complied with two out of three notice requirements of the Education Act 1944
- Was deemed to have been a breach of merely directory requirement rather than mandatory
- Shows that whether or not a claimant is substantially prejudiced by non-compliance with an important procedural safeguard is a factor for the courts to consider in determining mandatory/directory statutory requirements.
Soneji [2006]
Lord Steyn suggested that, rather than making rigid distinctions, consider the intention of Parliament and whether they would have intended the non-compliance to render the decision invalid.
IRC, ex p Unilever [1996]
Example of substantive legitimate expectation.
Company was technically time-barred, but the body had always accepted similar applications in the past
Ex p Coughlan [2001]
Lord Woolf outlined three categories for legitimate expectation:
- The public authority is only required to bear in mind its previous policy, it must give this the weight it thinks right, but nothing more.
- Here the court is confined to reviewing the decision on Wednesbury grounds. IRC, ex p Unilever [1996]. - The promise or practice induces a legitimate expectation of, for example, being consulted before a decision is made. This is ‘procedural legitimate expectation’, see above.
- The promise or practice induced a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit and that to frustrate the expectation is so unfair it would amount to an abuse of power.
- The court will decide whether it would be an abuse of power to frustrate.
