Procedural fairness in judicial review
Procedural Fairness in Judicial Review
What is Procedural Fairness?
Procedural Fairness (also called Natural Justice) refers to the principles that require administrative decisions affecting individuals’ rights, interests, or legitimate expectations to be made through a fair process. It is a fundamental element in judicial review where courts examine whether administrative authorities followed fair procedures.
Procedural fairness primarily includes two key rules:
The Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem): The person affected by a decision must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, i.e., the right to be heard before an adverse decision is made.
The Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): The decision-maker must be impartial and free from bias.
Importance of Procedural Fairness in Judicial Review
Ensures transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.
Protects individuals from arbitrary, biased, or unfair decisions.
Promotes legitimacy and public confidence in administrative authorities.
Procedural fairness is not just a formality but a substantive right enforceable through judicial review.
Important Case Laws on Procedural Fairness in Judicial Review
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) AC 40
Facts: A chief constable was dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Issue: Was the dismissal lawful without a hearing?
Judgment: The House of Lords held that procedural fairness requires a hearing before dismissal.
Principle: Administrative decisions affecting rights must be preceded by an opportunity to be heard.
Significance: This case marked a major shift, emphasizing audi alteram partem as a cornerstone of procedural fairness.
2. Board of Education v. Rice (1911) AC 179
Facts: A school teacher was dismissed without being given reasons or an opportunity to respond.
Issue: Whether natural justice applies to administrative disciplinary actions.
Judgment: The court held that failure to provide a fair hearing rendered the dismissal unlawful.
Principle: The decision-maker must provide reasons and allow the affected party to present their case.
Significance: Reinforced the right to be heard in administrative actions affecting personal rights.
3. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HL Cas 759
Facts: A judge who held shares in a canal company made a ruling affecting that company.
Issue: Whether there was bias or conflict of interest.
Judgment: The House of Lords invalidated the decision due to apparent bias.
Principle: Decision-makers must be impartial and avoid conflicts of interest.
Significance: Established the bias rule, that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
4. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180
Facts: An owner’s property was demolished without prior notice or hearing.
Issue: Whether failure to give notice violated natural justice.
Judgment: The court held that procedural fairness required notice and an opportunity to be heard before adverse actions.
Principle: Procedural fairness includes notice and opportunity to respond before action.
Significance: Established that natural justice applies beyond courts to administrative bodies.
5. Morgan v. Hennin (1949) 1 All ER 136
Facts: A local authority decided a matter without giving interested parties a chance to present evidence.
Issue: Whether the absence of an oral hearing violated procedural fairness.
Judgment: The court held that failure to provide a hearing where credibility or facts are disputed breaches procedural fairness.
Principle: Where factual disputes arise, an oral hearing may be required.
Significance: Defined the scope of the hearing rule depending on the nature of the decision.
Summary of Procedural Fairness Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Right to be heard | Ridge v. Baldwin | Individuals must get a fair chance to respond before adverse decisions. |
| Notice and reasons | Cooper v. Wandsworth Board | Notice of the case and reasons for decisions are essential. |
| Impartiality/Bias rule | Dimes v. Grand Junction | Decision-makers must be impartial, free from conflicts of interest. |
| Fair hearing depends on context | Morgan v. Hennin | Oral hearings are necessary where facts and credibility are disputed. |
| Applicability to admin bodies | Board of Education v. Rice | Natural justice applies to administrative as well as judicial decisions. |
How Procedural Fairness is Applied Today
Courts assess whether the administrative body followed fair procedures appropriate to the context.
Procedural fairness is flexible; not all decisions require the same procedural safeguards.
The severity of the impact on rights determines the level of fairness required.
In judicial review, procedural fairness breaches can result in decisions being quashed or set aside.
RELATED Blog
0 comments