Legitimate Expectation Readings Notes

Legitimate Expectations

Nature of problem

Actual & Apparent Retroactivity — general policies

• Actual retroactivity —

  • Where rule introduced & applied to past events — eg retrospective application to events or earlier commencement date

  • Violates Rule of Law tenet that law should guide conduct

• Apparent retroactivity —

  • Where rule applies to events at the end of a transaction that is already in train — people have conducted their affairs according to policy expecting it to stay the same

  • Less objectionable — there is never a time when a policy can change without affecting plans

Tension — Legal Certainty <> Principle of Legality — representations

• Principle of legal certainty — individual should be able to conduct affairs in reliance on representations of public bodies

• Principle of legality —

  • If representation intra vires — Holding public body to representation amounts to fetter on discretion which is ultra vires

  • If representation ultra vires — Representation is beyond power so authority can’t be held to it

Justifications

Considerations militating against broad recognition of LEs

Flexibility of administration

• Argument arises from principle that public body precluded from making contract if is foreseeably incompatible with statutory functions — contract representation

  • BUT limits type of contracts that can enter, doesn’t void all contracts limit types of representations that create LE

  • Public bodies enter PFI contracts that fetter discretion for 20+ years

• Remedy based on LE still requires

  • proof of actual expectation etc

  • that public body not justified in resiling

Legality — for ultra vires representations/policies

• Authorities not bound by unlawful decisions

• Powers vested in public bodies on implicit condition that will be exercised lawfully

Arguments in favour

• Fairness in public administration

Legal certainty — reliance theory

• Individual representation — should be able to rely

  • Interesting that no Walton Stores v Maher in UK, so public<>private divide

• Derives from harm principle — government shouldn’t cause avoidable harm — akin to estoppel rationale

• BUT reliance is not & should not be necessary for protection

  • Departure from policy in particular case {2} offends equality

  • Departure from final decision {4} not tolerable even if no reliance

• Even in other cases shouldn’t be determinative

  • Shift in general policy — would be arbitrary to grant remedy to those who have relied but not others — eg prisoners after shift in release policy in Hargreaves

• Can’t be absolute — clearly public authorities will have to frustrate reliance of some individuals by changing policies — not all will be compensated

• Two theories merge at the edges — if ‘reliance’ includes mere disappointment ability to plan affairs = rule of law objection

Rule of law — autonomy & predictability

• Raz — law & policy should be capable of guiding conduct & individuals should be capable of conducting their affairs to comply with law

• Particularly important in public law to counterbalance broad discretionary powers

• Requires stability

  • Unless certainty guaranteed & flexibility reduced to some degree, a policy/representation is meaningless and application is arbitrary

  • Sedley J in Hamble Fisheries — substantive LEs do not fetter administration because not legitimate to expect public policy to stand still because of an individual’s particular position

• Requires equality — fairness

  • Like cases should be treated alike — ie no {2} departure from general policy without good reason

• Instrumental slant — trust in government & promotion of good administration

  • Trust in government is a good in itself

  • Trust in government’s representations can make it more efficient & make economy more fluid, investment more attractive, etc

  • Makes more likely to be perceived as legitimate

  • Threat of remedy under LE will make more likely to provide accurate advice, policies, etc

    • OR might incentivise to have no policies at all & act in arbitrary way — but to do so would threaten legitimacy / democratic popularity

  • Consistency w EU law

Normative justifications by category

1. Shift of general policy

   • Less likely to guide conduct — unless supported by specific undertaking policy would continue

     • Although nature of policy & therefore LE is the same as in {2} — only difference is nature of departure

   • Departure probably not unjust — flexibility arguments strong — but notice/presence of transitional provisions aid personal autonomy

2. Departure from policy in individual case

   • General policy less likely to guide conduct

   • BUT additional consideration of equality — even if no detrimental reliance

3. Individual representation

   • Rule of law justification strong — gives impression of finality so long as facts fully disclosed/true & don’t change

   • If ultra vires, positioned weakened by legality

   • Even if intra vires, possibly offends equality because mere representation not subject to full consideration & procedures

4. Individual finalised determination

   • Rule of law justification is strongest — very likely to guide conduct even if no detrimental reliance

   • If ultra vires, position is weakened by legality

UK

• Legitimate expectation = control on discretion by guaranteeing legal certainty

• Intra vires <> ultra vires representations

  • Intra vires representation — can give rise to LE in certain circs

  • Ultra vires representation — general rule that no LE, subject to certain exceptions

Intra vires representations

Background

Pre-Coughlan — procedural LE only

• Mixed authority as to LE in {1} shift in general policy —

  • Hamble Fisheries (1995) per Sedley J (H bought 2 small boats – intended to transfer fishing licence to larger boat – policy of Minister as to allow – policy changed policy can create LE)

    • Expressly rejected by CA in Hargreaves (1997) (sudden change in policy on prisoners’ leave no LE)

  • Unilever (1996) (IRC accepted tax refund claims after deadline for 25 years could...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Comparative Public Law Notes.