Protection of legitimate expectations
⚖️ Protection of Legitimate Expectations
🔍 What Is the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations?
The doctrine of legitimate expectations protects individuals from arbitrary changes in governmental policies or decisions that affect their rights or interests, especially when:
The government has made a promise or representation, or
There has been a consistent past practice on which a person has reasonably relied.
It originates in administrative law and is intended to ensure fairness in public decision-making. It prevents public authorities from acting unfairly or inconsistently, particularly where citizens have made plans or investments based on government conduct.
📘 Types of Legitimate Expectations
Procedural Legitimate Expectations
The expectation that a person will be heard or consulted before a decision is changed.
Substantive Legitimate Expectations
The expectation that a particular benefit, status, or policy will continue, based on a past representation or practice.
✅ Key Requirements
To invoke the doctrine successfully, a claimant must show:
A clear promise or practice by the authority.
Reliance on that promise or practice.
Detriment caused if the expectation is not fulfilled.
Unfairness in departing from the expectation.
📚 Case Law Examples
⚖️ 1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) [1985] AC 374 – United Kingdom
Context: Civil servants at GCHQ were denied the right to join a union, despite a long-standing practice allowing union membership.
Issue: Did the employees have a legitimate expectation of consultation before the change?
Judgment: The House of Lords recognized the doctrine of legitimate expectation in UK law and held that a change in policy that affects existing expectations must be procedurally fair.
Key Principle: A legitimate expectation of consultation arises from consistent past practice.
Impact: Established procedural fairness as a basis for judicial review.
⚖️ 2. Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629 – UK Privy Council
Context: A person in Hong Kong was promised that illegal immigrants would be interviewed before deportation.
Issue: Could the government deport him without an interview?
Judgment: The Privy Council held that the government was bound by its promise and could not act contrary to it without allowing a fair process.
Key Principle: A clear and unambiguous promise by a public authority gives rise to a legitimate expectation.
Impact: Reinforced the importance of honoring official assurances.
⚖️ 3. Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) AIR SC 155 – India
Context: A housing society challenged a change in policy that affected its priority in land allotment.
Issue: Did the society have a legitimate expectation based on earlier allotment guidelines?
Judgment: The Supreme Court of India held that the society had a legitimate expectation based on the previous policy and could not be pushed down in priority without justification.
Key Principle: Administrative consistency is essential, and departure from policy must be justified.
Impact: Protected applicants who relied on settled administrative policies.
⚖️ 4. R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 – United Kingdom
Context: A disabled woman was promised that a care home would be her “home for life.” Later, the health authority sought to close it.
Issue: Could the authority renege on its promise?
Judgment: The Court of Appeal held the representation created a substantive legitimate expectation. Departing from the promise was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power.
Key Principle: A substantive benefit promised by a public authority can give rise to a legitimate expectation.
Impact: Expanded the doctrine from procedural to substantive legitimate expectations.
⚖️ 5. Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879) – Pakistan
Context: Appointment of judges under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) was challenged.
Issue: Could expectations created under an extra-constitutional regime be enforced?
Judgment: The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that legitimate expectations must be grounded in law and constitutionality. Expectations based on unconstitutional actions are not protected.
Key Principle: Legitimate expectations must be legal and within constitutional bounds.
Impact: Reinforced the legal foundation required for expectations to be protected.
⚖️ 6. Federation of Pakistan v. Durrani Ceramics (2014 SCMR 1630) – Pakistan
Context: A change in tax exemptions affected businesses that had made investments relying on earlier policy.
Issue: Did the companies have a legitimate expectation that the policy would continue?
Judgment: The Supreme Court acknowledged the principle of legitimate expectation, holding that economic decisions based on clear policies should be protected unless overriding public interest requires change.
Key Principle: Substantive legitimate expectations in commercial and tax matters can be protected.
Impact: Reinforced government accountability in economic policymaking.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| GCHQ Case (1985) | UK | Right to union membership | Procedural expectation upheld |
| Ng Yuen Shiu (1983) | HK/UK | Deportation without hearing | Promise enforced |
| Navjyoti Housing (1992) | India | Land allotment priority | Expectation protected |
| Ex parte Coughlan (2001) | UK | Closure of care home | Substantive expectation enforced |
| SHCBA v. Federation (2009) | Pakistan | Judges’ appointment under PCO | Unlawful expectations rejected |
| Durrani Ceramics (2014) | Pakistan | Tax exemption policy | Expectation recognized |
⚖️ General Legal Principles
Clear Promise or Policy
The expectation must arise from a clear and unambiguous representation.
Reliance
The individual must have relied on the promise or practice.
Consistency
A consistent past practice may also give rise to expectations, even without explicit promises.
Fairness
Unfairness or arbitrariness in breaking the expectation may trigger judicial intervention.
Public Interest Limitation
Legitimate expectations may be overridden by compelling public interest, but with proper justification and procedure.
📌 Conclusion
The doctrine of legitimate expectations serves as a powerful tool in administrative law to ensure:
Consistency and predictability in government action.
Protection of individual trust in public authorities.
Procedural and substantive fairness in policy changes.
Courts across jurisdictions have upheld this doctrine as a means to check arbitrary administrative conduct and to safeguard rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments