Doctrine of legitimate expectation in Australia
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Australia
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is a principle of administrative law that protects procedural fairness and sometimes substantive benefits that a person may reasonably expect from a public authority. It prevents public authorities from frustrating or reneging on promises or established practices that have induced a legitimate expectation.
In Australia, the doctrine evolved as a means to ensure fairness in administrative decision-making. It generally applies where:
A public authority has made a clear, unambiguous promise, representation, or established a consistent practice.
The affected person has relied on this promise or practice.
It would be unfair or an abuse of power for the authority to frustrate that expectation without giving procedural safeguards (usually a hearing).
The doctrine can be classified into:
Procedural legitimate expectation: The expectation of a procedural right, such as a hearing before a decision is made.
Substantive legitimate expectation: The expectation that a public authority will grant a substantive benefit or decision promised or routinely granted.
Development and Application of the Doctrine in Australia through Key Case Laws
1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Facts: The plaintiff, a visa applicant, argued he had a legitimate expectation of natural justice (a fair hearing) due to the Department’s previous representations.
Issue: Whether the applicant was entitled to procedural fairness based on a legitimate expectation.
Judgment: The High Court recognized the doctrine and held that where a public authority has made a clear promise or representation, it must provide procedural fairness (usually a hearing or opportunity to be heard) before making a decision that frustrates the expectation.
Significance: This case firmly established the doctrine in Australian law as a ground to demand procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
2. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
Facts: Applicants sought judicial review for failure to follow established administrative procedures.
Issue: Whether failure to follow established practices gave rise to a legitimate expectation and a breach of procedural fairness.
Judgment: The High Court emphasized that legitimate expectations arise where a public authority has created a clear representation or promise, and procedural fairness may be required in such circumstances.
Significance: The Court clarified that not every expectation will attract legal protection; it must be reasonable, clear, and created by an authority with power to make decisions.
3. Lamb v Mossman (1983) 1 NSWLR 562
Facts: A local council promised a resident that his application would be processed in a particular way.
Issue: Whether the council’s promise created a legitimate expectation enforceable by courts.
Judgment: The court found that the council’s clear, unambiguous promise gave rise to a legitimate expectation, and the council could not depart from that promise without procedural fairness.
Significance: Early case affirming that promises or established practices by public bodies can generate legitimate expectations.
4. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Facts: The Tribunal altered its usual procedures affecting the rights of license holders.
Issue: Whether the license holders had a legitimate expectation of the continuation of previous procedures.
Judgment: The High Court held that where a person has a legitimate expectation of procedural fairness, the public authority must provide it before changing established practice.
Significance: Reinforced that legitimate expectation protects procedural rights and established practices in administrative law.
5. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts: The Minister revoked a visa based on new information, contrary to the applicant’s expectation of continued protection.
Issue: Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation of substantive benefit (visa protection).
Judgment: The Court distinguished between procedural and substantive expectations, emphasizing that substantive legitimate expectations are less readily upheld unless the representation was clear, unambiguous, and made by an authorized officer.
Significance: Clarified the limits of substantive legitimate expectation in Australian administrative law.
Summary of the Doctrine in Australia:
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation protects individuals from abrupt or unfair administrative decisions.
It primarily protects procedural fairness—the right to be heard before a decision that frustrates a legitimate expectation.
Substantive legitimate expectation—expecting a promised benefit—exists but is cautiously applied.
The doctrine requires:
A clear, unambiguous representation or promise.
Reliance by the individual.
Unfairness in frustration without procedural fairness.
Courts balance administrative efficiency against fairness and legal certainty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments