When a public authority makes its proposed course of action (or policy) public, the courts will order the public authority to follow that course of action, unless there is a compelling reason not to.
There has been some departure from the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in cases where:
(1) one is unaware of the policy until after the determination adverse to them was made; and
(2) wherein reliance is placed on guidance issued by one public body to another.
Mr. Mandalia needed to renew his visa because he had traveled from India to the UK to study. He had to fulfill a number of conditions, including having £5,400 in his bank account for 28 straight days prior to applying, in order to do so.
He provided a bank statement that fell short of the required 28-day period. At first, his application was denied, and he was threatened with deportation from the UK. He was unsuccessful in his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Later, he successfully appealed the removal judgment to the Upper Tribunal, but he did not address the rejection of his application for a visa extension because of specific directives given to caseworkers.
Despite having jurisdiction, the Court of case ultimately rejected Mr. Mandalia's case.
Appeal allowed.
The Supreme Court stressed in this decision the significance of public authorities abiding by their established policies in the absence of compelling grounds to do otherwise.
This serves as a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making by public authorities.
Administrative Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and C...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Administrative Law | Jr Procedure Notes (58 pages) |
Tort Law | Jr Procedure Notes (58 pages) |
Administrative Law | Procedural Fairness Reasons And Expectations Notes (31 pages) |