Facts: The Government funded a number of places in private (fee-paying) schools, so that children who could not afford such schools had an opportunity to attend them.
Held: The claim was rejected → there was no enforceable legitimate expectation arises where compliance with it would run counter to an Act of Parliament
Facts: The claimants (investors (and Lloyds of London underwriters)) sought assurances from the Inland Revenue (i.e. the tax man) on whether a particular type of security bond would be taxed as income or capital gain
⇒ The claimant said, in judicial review, that a change of practice by the IR was contrary to a legitimate expectation → the High Court dismissed this
Held: The court found that to bind the IR to its own advice would be ‘unfair’(!)
⇒ Bingham LJ (as he then was) set out when a legitimate expectation would arise:
Facts: This case is about an established practice giving rise to legitimate expectations
⇒ For more than 20 years, the Inland Revenue accepted late claims for tax relief. Without giving notice, the Inland Revenue decided that it would no longer accept late claims. It was argued that the established practice of accepting late claims gave rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation, and the court agreed.
Held: The claimant had good cause to expect an established practice to continue, because the repetition of the practice gave rise to a >clear, unambiguous and unqualified expectation of a certain treatment
Facts: This claim also involves asylum; however, this time two different Home Office policies applied and a conflict as to which of the two should be applied:
⇒ In this case, the claimant arrived in the UK via Germany, yet argued that they had family ties to the UK. So should Nadarajah’s claim be hear in Germany or the UK?
Held: The claim failed, so the claimant was lawfully removed to Germany
Facts: The claimant was severely injured in a road traffic accident in 1971, and required care on an on-going basis. In 1993, she was asked to move to a new NHS facility, Mardon House, with a promise that Mardon House would be her home for life. In 1998, the health authority decided to close Mardon House on financial grounds.
⇒ In a claim for judicial review, the High Court quashed the decision to close Mardon House on the ground that Coughlan had been made a specific promise, and the defendant had not advanced an overriding public interest to break such a promise.
Held: The health authority appealed, but the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, affirming the High Court decision.
⇒ For this substantive benefit of legitimate expectation to be enforced the usual requirements must be present:
⇒ But where the promise is for a substantive benefit, the promise must be:
FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades
SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know
INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job
We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...
The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!
Facts: The claimants were families who had arrived in the UK, and were provided with temporary accommodation by the local authority under the homeless provision. The local authority promised the families that they would be in secure, long-term accommodation within 18 months, because the local authority thought that they were obliged by law to make such an assurance (but they had made a mistake in the law).
Held: In judicial review, the High Court found for the claimants in requiring the local authority to be bound by its promise.
⇒ On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal in part: it would be unfair to require the council to be bound by a promise to provide accommodation where such a promise is on an erroneous understanding of the law. But the council should bear in mind that they had created a legitimate expectation in respect of these families when considering the allocation of available housing.
⇒ What would this mean in practice for Newham LBC?
⇒ The case also advances the point, discussed to a lesser extent in FK Underwriting, that reliance on a promise to the claimant’s detriment would be relevant in assessing the fairness one might attach to enforcing (or not) a legitimate expectation.
⇒ The Home Office applied the wrong policy in rejecting a claim for asylum from an Iraqi Kurd. The correct policy applicable at the time of application explicitly excluded consideration of certain factors - factors which were cited as the reasons for the rejection of the asylum claim.
⇒ It is perhaps uncontroversial to suggest that the Home Office is bound by its own policy-making in respect of immigration and asylum law—policy now freely and openly available on the website.
⇒ But the courts are also aware that asylum seekers and immigrants might not have access to relevant and good legal advice and information, so requiring the Home Office to apply their own policy correctly (even where the applicant himself is unaware of it) is acceptable to the court.
Facts: In 2004, Tony Blair signed the Constitutional Treaty (EU Constitution), and promised that a referendum will be held before ratification could take place. Following rejection in France and the Netherlands, the project to have an EU Constitution was abandoned. The Lisbon Treaty was later sought as a compromise (this gave effect to some aspects of the failed constitution)
⇒ When the Government refused to offer a referendum on ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Wheeler brought a claim in judicial review → the basis of the claim was a legitimate expectation that a referendum would be held in respect of the Lisbon Treaty
Held: The claim failed:
Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.
✅ 60+ page eBook
✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!
✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE