Exceptions and Exclusions to Principles of Natural Justice
Exceptions and Exclusions to Principles of Natural Justice
1. Introduction to Natural Justice
Natural justice is a fundamental principle in administrative law aimed at ensuring fairness in decision-making. It primarily includes:
The right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)
The rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)
However, these principles are not absolute. Certain exceptions and exclusions apply, often to balance efficiency, public interest, or special statutory regimes.
2. Categories of Exceptions and Exclusions
Statutory Exclusion: Parliament may expressly or impliedly exclude natural justice in legislation.
Emergency or Urgency: Where delay would defeat the purpose of the decision.
Public Interest or National Security: Where disclosure could harm the public interest.
Waiver or Consent: When the affected party waives the right to a hearing.
Special Administrative Contexts: Certain tribunals or regulatory schemes may limit procedural fairness.
Impossibility or Futility: Where hearing would serve no purpose.
3. Key Cases Explaining Exceptions to Natural Justice
A. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts:
Ridge, a Chief Constable, was dismissed without a hearing.
The statutory framework was silent on procedural requirements.
Issue:
Whether dismissal without a hearing violated natural justice.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unlawful because natural justice was a necessary implication.
However, this case also sets the limit that Parliament can expressly exclude natural justice.
Significance:
Established that natural justice applies unless clearly excluded by statute.
If statute excludes natural justice, the courts generally respect legislative intent.
B. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts:
Prisoners facing parole decisions challenged the Home Secretary for failure to give reasons or opportunity to make representations.
Issue:
Whether natural justice required procedural fairness in this context.
Holding:
Lord Mustill held that where a decision affects a person’s rights, natural justice normally applies, unless excluded by statute.
However, in urgent or sensitive situations, the scope of the duty may be limited.
Significance:
Recognized that natural justice is flexible and context-dependent.
Exceptions can arise based on public interest or statutory wording.
C. R v Gaming Board, ex parte Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 QB 417
Facts:
The Gaming Board refused to grant licenses without hearings.
Applicants challenged the refusal for breach of natural justice.
Issue:
Whether natural justice applied to licensing decisions.
Holding:
The court held that where the statute expressly excluded the right to a hearing, natural justice does not apply.
The Board was entitled to act without giving a hearing.
Significance:
Shows how statutory exclusion clauses can restrict natural justice.
Important for understanding legislative control over procedural fairness.
D. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2008] UKHL 61
Facts:
British government issued Orders in Council affecting Chagos Islanders without prior hearing.
Islanders claimed breach of natural justice.
Issue:
Whether natural justice applies to orders made by the executive under prerogative powers.
Holding:
The House of Lords held that in some cases, natural justice does not apply to certain prerogative orders, particularly when national security or public interest is involved.
However, courts retained power to review for illegality or irrationality.
Significance:
Demonstrates an exception to natural justice in the context of prerogative powers.
National security and public interest can justify exclusion of hearing rights.
E. R v Camberwell London Borough Council, ex parte Low [1981] 1 WLR 1370
Facts:
The council terminated a tenancy without notice or hearing.
Issue:
Whether the council had to observe natural justice.
Holding:
The court held that natural justice applied unless there was a statutory provision allowing summary action.
However, in emergency situations (e.g., serious public danger), procedural requirements may be relaxed.
Significance:
Illustrates emergency exception where delay could cause harm.
Courts balance fairness with necessity.
F. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Facts:
The Health Authority changed a policy without consulting affected patients.
Issue:
Whether a legitimate expectation arose requiring consultation.
Holding:
The court distinguished between cases requiring full hearing and those where consultation may be minimal or unnecessary.
In some contexts, natural justice may be limited by legitimate expectation doctrines or policy decisions.
Significance:
Shows natural justice may be limited by other administrative law principles, like legitimate expectation.
Reflects balancing of interests and administrative efficiency.
4. Summary Table: Exceptions to Natural Justice
| Exception | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Statutory Exclusion | Parliament excludes natural justice explicitly | R v Gaming Board, ex parte Benaim |
| Urgency/Emergency | Delay would cause harm | R v Camberwell LBC, ex parte Low |
| National Security/Public Interest | Disclosure or hearing may harm state interests | R (Bancoult) v FCO (No. 2) |
| Prerogative Powers | Limited judicial review, no natural justice requirement | Bancoult case |
| Waiver or Consent | Party agrees to forego hearing | - |
| Impossibility/Futility | Hearing would be pointless | Discussed in Doody |
5. Conclusion
Natural justice is a core principle ensuring fairness in administrative decision-making but is not absolute. Courts recognize that certain exceptions and exclusions must apply for:
Efficient governance
Protecting vital public interests
Respecting statutory frameworks
The balance between fairness and practicality is delicate, and courts continue to navigate these tensions case by case.
RELATED Blog
0 comments