Legitimate expectation doctrine in Australia
Legitimate Expectation Doctrine in Australia
What is Legitimate Expectation?
Legitimate expectation arises when a public authority, through its conduct, representations, policies, or promises, creates a reasonable expectation in a person that a certain procedure will be followed or a certain benefit granted.
It is a procedural protection—meaning the individual expects procedural fairness (e.g., notice or hearing) before a decision adversely affecting them is made.
It can also sometimes be substantive, where a person expects a particular outcome or benefit.
Key Features
Source: Can arise from express promises, established practices, or consistent conduct.
Nature: Usually procedural (right to a fair hearing or consultation) but can extend to substantive benefits.
Legal Impact: Administrative decisions may be reviewed if the public authority fails to honor legitimate expectations.
Limitations: Does not override statutory powers; expectation must be reasonable and clear.
Leading Australian Case Laws on Legitimate Expectation
1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
Facts:
Teoh, a Malaysian citizen, was deported without being given a hearing, despite Australia’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which was not yet part of domestic law).
Judgment:
The High Court recognized that ratification of an international treaty can give rise to a legitimate expectation that administrative decisions will be made in accordance with the treaty’s provisions.
The decision-maker owed procedural fairness based on this expectation.
Significance:
Established that legitimate expectation can arise from government’s treaty commitments.
Expanded the doctrine’s reach, linking it with international obligations.
2. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Facts:
Applicant argued that a previous policy created a legitimate expectation of certain procedural protections.
Judgment:
The High Court clarified that legitimate expectation arises only when a promise or representation is clear, unambiguous, and devoid of relevant qualification.
The Court emphasized that expectations must be reasonable and based on the conduct or policies of the decision-maker.
Significance:
Refined the doctrine, placing limits on the scope of legitimate expectation.
Reinforced that it cannot be used to create substantive rights where none exist.
3. NAGV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 108 FCR 163
Facts:
The case involved the withdrawal of a promised benefit by immigration authorities.
Judgment:
The Full Federal Court held that a legitimate expectation could exist where there was a clear and unqualified promise or established practice.
Where such expectation exists, procedural fairness requires notice and an opportunity to respond before the promise is withdrawn.
Significance:
Affirms that legitimate expectation protects against sudden withdrawal of benefits or policies.
Emphasizes procedural fairness in such contexts.
4. Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
Facts:
Though primarily about statutory interpretation, this case is often cited regarding the limits of administrative power and procedural fairness, closely linked to legitimate expectation.
Judgment:
The High Court stated that rights or privileges cannot be taken away unless the law clearly permits it.
This principle supports legitimate expectation by protecting procedural fairness and reliance on government representations.
Significance:
Reinforces the legal protection for expectations created by law or conduct.
Supports the notion that government cannot renege on promises lightly.
5. Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549
Facts:
This case involved corporate conduct, but the reasoning about representations creating expectations influenced administrative law.
Judgment:
The court held that representations, if reasonably relied upon, could give rise to an expectation enforceable in law.
Significance:
Though not an administrative case, it influenced the development of legitimate expectation by affirming the reliance principle.
Summary
The legitimate expectation doctrine protects individuals from arbitrary or unfair administrative decisions by ensuring procedural fairness when clear promises or consistent policies are relied upon.
The doctrine is mostly procedural but can, in limited cases, protect substantive rights.
Key Australian cases have shaped the doctrine by emphasizing the reasonableness, clarity, and unambiguity of the expectation.
Courts balance protecting legitimate expectations with preserving government’s statutory powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments