This case involved LEs.
Sedley J said that LE was concerned with protection of the substance, not merely the procedure, of administrative decisions and adopted the “balancing” approach rejected by Laws J (above).
The real question is one of fairness, and it is just as unfair to frustrate a LE that something will/wont be done, as it is to deprive someone of a LE that they will be involved in the procedure.
Legitimacy is itself a relative concept, to be gauged proportionately to the legal and policy implications of the expectation…Legitimacy in this sense is not an absolute. It is a function of expectations induced by government and of policy considerations which militate against their fulfilment. The balance must in the first instance be for the policy-maker to strike; but if the outcome is challenged by way of judicial review, I do not consider that the court's criterion is the bare rationality of the policy-maker's conclusion.
While policy is for the policy-maker alone, the fairness of his or her decision not to accommodate reasonable expectations which the policy will thwart remains the court's concern
This indicates a balancing exercise stronger than merely the Wednesbury rationality concept.
Interesting side-point: Sedley J and Laws J argued this point against each other as barristers!
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.