Legitimate Expectation

Introduction

·        Legitimate expectation protects individuals from unfair changes in public authority behaviour.

·        Doctrine criticised as uncertain and inconsistently applied.

Types of legitimate expectation

(1)     Procedural

·        Expectation of consultation or hearing.

·        AG of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu

o   Promise of interview – binding.

o   Enforces procedural fairness.

·        (2) Substantive

·        Expectation of continued benefit.

·        R v North and East Devon HA ex p Coughlan

o   Clear promise of a ‘home for life’

o   Court enforced promise unless overriding public interet.

·        High threshold:

o   Clear, unambiguous representation.

o   Reliance.

o   Unfairness amounting to abuse of power.

Tension with discretion

·        Public authorities must not fetter discretion.

·        Courts wary of preventing future policy change.

·        Begbie –

o   Political promises – weak expectations.

o   Protects democratic decision-making.

Criticism of the Doctrine

·        Lack of clear test for:

o   When substantive expectations arise.

o   How much weight to give public interest.

·        Results in case-by-case uncertainty.

Defence of the Doctrine

·        Flexibility allows:

o   Protection of fairness.

o   Respect for democratic change.

·        Courts balance:

o   Individual fairness.

o   Public interest.

Conclusion

·        Doctrine is intentionally flexible, not incoherent.

·        While uncertainty exists, it reflects the complexity of governance.

·        Legitimate expectation remains a vital fairness control.