Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:16:23.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clarity and ambiguity: a new approach to the test of legitimacy in the law of legitimate expectations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Jack Watson
Jack Watson*
Affiliation:
Emmanuel College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the legitimacy element of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in English administrative law. It argues that the underlying principle is the voluntary assumption of responsibility that comes from analysing a promise as a social convention. From this underlying principle, it argues that the current ‘clear unambiguous representation’ test is insufficiently certain and instead advocates a three-stage test centred round the courts' ability to make an order, the objective construction of the promise and the decision makers' intent. This test, it is argued, explains the decided cases, as well as providing a robust structure for future decisions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 633 - 652
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213.

2. See Re Findlay [1985] AC 318 at 338 per Lord Scarman: ‘But what was their legitimate expectation?’.

3. Craig, P Contracting out, the Human Rights Act and the scope of judicial review’ (1992) 108 LQR 79 Google Scholar at 91.

4. Ibid.

5. R (BAPIO) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 27, [2008] 1 AC 1003.

6. Case 2/75 Einfur-und Voratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel v Firma C Mackprang [1975] ECR 607; see also Case C-179/00 Wiedacher v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft [2002] ECR I-501.

7. Steele, I Substantive legitimate expectations: striking the right balance’ (2005) 121 LQR 300 Google Scholar at 304–305.

8. Campbell, J Legitimate expectations: the potential limits of substantive protection in South Africa’ (2003) 120 South African Law Journal 292 Google Scholar.

9. Ibid, at 305.

10. R (Bibi) v Newham BC [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237.

11. Elliott, M British jobs for British doctors: legitimate expectations and inter-departmental decision making’ (2008) 67(3) CLJ 453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Ibid, at 454.

13. Attorney General for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 WLR 735, R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 4 All ER 1055.

14. [2005] EWCA Civ 1363.

15. Above n 5.

16. [1989] COD 512.

17. It is conceivable that there might be other methods giving clear indications of the decision maker's intentions regarding the applicant's entitlement; see e.g. R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Unilever plc [1996] STC 681.

18. [1985] AC 374.

19. Ibid, at 401.

20. [2003] EWCA Civ 473, [2003] QB 1397 at [72].

21. The term representation must here be interpreted to include representation by conduct, policy, etc.

22. Above n 17.

23. Above n 18, at above Para ref?

24. Though his analysis turned on an estoppel analysis rejected by the House of Lords in R (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2002] UKHL 8, [2002] 4 All ER 58.

25. R v Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority, ex p South West Water Ltd [2001] QB 445 per Simon Brown LJ and Pill LJ.

26. [2008] EWHC 1409 (Admin), [2008] AC 70.

27. [2008] UKHL 61, [2009] 1 AC 453.

28. [2001] QB 1067.

29. Above n 27, at [62].

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid, at [73].

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid, at [174].

34. Sales, P and Steyn, K Legitimate expectations in English law: an analysis’ (2004) PL 564 Google Scholar.

35. Ibid, at 568.

36. See, eg, British Oxygen Co v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610. Though this does raise the question as to whether there is tension between this rule and the legitimate expectation doctrine (on which see below).

37. See also Wheeler v Prime Minister, above n 26.

38. Above n 34.

39. Ibid, at 575.

40. See, eg, Coughlan, above n 1.

41. [2008] EWCA Civ 755, (2008) 152(29) SJLB 29.

42. Raz, J Promises and obligations’ in Hacker, PMS and Raz, J (eds) Law, Morality and Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971 Google Scholar).

43. See Searle, J What is a speech act?’ in Searle, J (ed) The Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971 Google Scholar). This notion of speech as an act has roots in Wittgenstein, L Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Basil Blackwells, 3rd edn, 1967 Google Scholar).

44. Schønberg, S Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

45. Over and above its general duty to see to the welfare of individuals.

46. Wade, HWR and Forsyth, CF Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10th edn, 2009 Google Scholar).

47. Ibid, p 447.

48. As prohibited under the Bill of Rights 1689.

49. This is distinct from its protection. It is conceivable, indeed likely, that an expectation of substantive benefit will not be substantively protected: R v Devon CC, ex p Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 per Simon Brown LJ.

50. [1984] 1 WLR 1337.

51. See, eg, Ng Yuen Shiu, above n 13, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hargreaves [1997] 1 All ER 397, Coughlan, above n 1.

52. Case 265/85 Van den Bergh en Jurgens v Commission [1987] ECR 1155, Case T-70/99 Alpharma v Council [2002] ECR II-3495.

53. See Case C-80/89, Behn Verpackungsbedarf GMBH v Hauptzollamt Tzehoe [1990] ECR I-2659 and contra R (Zeqiri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 3, [2002] Imm AR 296: ‘Kosovar refugees cannot be expected to check the small print’ at [44] per Lord Hoffmann.

54. Above n 34, at 575.

55. A full examination of the individuals capable of making binding representations is beyond the scope of this paper. For an illuminating discussion of these issues, see Moules Actions against Public Officials: Legitimate Expectations, Misstatements and Misconduct (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2009).

56. [1990] 1 WLR 1545.

57. R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex p Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115.

58. [2000] 2 AC 326 at 339.

59. Argued by Counsel in Wheeler v Prime Minister, above n 26, Richards LJ doubted whether this was right but did not decided the issue.

60. Findlay, above n 2, at 326–328; R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598, (2002) 99(47) LSG 29 at [91]; and R (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence [2003] QB 1397.

61. R (Structadene) v Hackney London Borough Council [2001] 2 All ER 225, Begbie, above n 57.

62. Above n 53.

63. [2007] EWCA Civ 498, [2008] QB 365.

64. Above n 34, at 576.

65. [2002] EWHC 2119 (Admin).

66. See, eg, R v Brent London Borough Council, ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168.

67. [2005] EWCA Civ 744, [2005] Imm AR 608.

68. Ibid, at [25] per Pill LJ.

69. Ibid, at [47] per Dyson LJ.

70. (1995) 128 ALR 353.

71. Joint judgment of Mason CJ and Deane J at 365.

72. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Ahmed and Patel [1998] INLR 570, [1999] COD 69 at 71.

73. (2005) JR 281.

74. Moules, above n 55, at 2-051.

75. (1997) PL 375.

76. Ibid, at 375.

77. Teoh, above n 70, at [31].

78. [2001] 1 AC 410.

79. [2006] EWHC 526 (Admin), [2006] Imm AR 477 per Collins J.

80. M Elliott ‘Legitimate expectations procedure, substance, policy and proportionality’ [2006] CLJ 254.

81. Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales v Tom Parker Farms Ltd [1998] 2 CMLR 721.

82. [1987] 2 All ER 518.

83. Above n 57.

84. Ibid, at 1124.

85. [2002] 1 WLR 237.

86. Craig, P Administrative Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 4th edn, 1999) p 619 Google Scholar.

87. Ibid, approved by Schiemann LJ op cit.

88. Begbie, above n 57, at 1133.

89. Moules, above n 55, at 2-022.

90. R (Walmsley) v Lane [2005] EWCA Civ 1540, [2006] RTR 15.

91. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Venables [1997] 3 All ER 97 per Lord Browne Wilkinson.

92. Assuming she is empowered to do so.

93. Above n 34.

94. Ibid, at 569–570.

95. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539 at 591F per Lord Steyn.

96. See Craig, above n 86, pp 615–616.

97. [1971] AC 610, though see contra R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Brent London Borough Council [1982] QB 593.

98. At 631.

99. Above n 80.