Administrative Law - Case Study Example

This principle, known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, requires William to establish that the Ministry's decision is William however is seeking to rely on a previous policy and to be treated as an exception to the existing, published policy. The question is whether he has a substantive right to do so, given that decision makers have the right to change their minds and have a duty to make unfettered decisions.4The doctrine of legitimate expectation5 recognizes that occasionally when a public body makes an unfettered decision injustice is done to a citizen.

A citizen will have a legitimate expectation where an official statement or other conduct of a public body has led to a reasonable belief that the citizen will be able to claim a benefit or advantage and it would be unfair for the public body to deprive the citizen of that benefit or advantage. Examples include where an official letter stated that an interview would be given before deportation6 and where an official circular stated that adoptions from abroad would be allowed in certain circumstances.

7 The fact that the compensation scheme came into being by the government exercising its prerogative powers will not preclude the court examining the justicability of the subject matter.8 In Council for Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984]9 their Lordships held that the trade unionists had a legitimate expectation that they would be consulted based on regular consultation on conditions of service in the past until they were given reasons for its withdrawal and the opportunity to comment. In R v. North and East Devon Health Authorities Ex p Coughlan [2000] the local health authority reneged on a promise that the claimant would have a home for life.

The Court of Appeal held that the statement was clear and unambiguous and that it was reasonable for the claimant to rely on it. On the basis of the reported decisions William will certainly have sufficient interest to apply for judicial review. Whether the court will bind the Ministry to honour its earlier policy on his behalf is a matter for the court's discretion. The court has to weigh the consequences of allowing William's expectations to be filled against the unlawful fettering of the Ministry's discretion and frustration of Parliament's clear intention not to award compensation.

He will certainly be entitled to a fair hearing and to be given reasons why he is to be denied the benefit. The court will only insist that the Ministry honour his expectation if there is 'some overriding public interest which justifies a departure'10 Although William is required to state the remedy(ies) sought in his initial application for judicial review, all remedies are discretionary in judicial review, and there is no guarantee that he will be granted any remedy even if he is successful.

Technically speaking the court can order any one or more of 6 orders in a judicial review application: a quashing order, a mandatory order, a prohibitive order, an injunction, a declaration and damages. In practice however a legitimate expectation does not give an absolute right to a remedy - only a heightened claim to the benefit or advantage.11 Generally the most