Scribd
Upload
160 views

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

The doctrine of legitimate expectations holds that citizens may legitimately expect fair treatment from administrative authorities, even without a strict legal right. This doctrine developed from cases where authorities promised a certain procedure or engaged in a regular practice that caused reasonable expectations. A legitimate expectation can give standing for judicial review and require authorities to afford representation before defeating the expectation, unless there is justifiable cause. However, legitimate expectations are only procedural and cannot preclude legislation or apply against public policy or national security.

Uploaded by

Abir N Zain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
160 views

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

The doctrine of legitimate expectations holds that citizens may legitimately expect fair treatment from administrative authorities, even without a strict legal right. This doctrine developed from cases where authorities promised a certain procedure or engaged in a regular practice that caused reasonable expectations. A legitimate expectation can give standing for judicial review and require authorities to afford representation before defeating the expectation, unless there is justifiable cause. However, legitimate expectations are only procedural and cannot preclude legislation or apply against public policy or national security.

Uploaded by

Abir N Zain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS

There are many concepts/doctrines, such as the concept of Natural Justice,


doctrine of Ultra Vires, doctrine of Supreme Necessity, doctrine of
Proportionality, etc. in Administrative Law world which the courts of law use as
means to control administrative actions. Amongst so many such concepts and
doctrines, the doctrine of Legitimate Expectations is noteworthy.

In the leading case of Attorney General of Hong Kong vs. Ng Yuen Shiu, Lord
Fraser stated:

"When a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the


interest of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its
promise, so long as the implementation does not interfere with its statutory
duty."

A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by


an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to
receive such treatment. Where a decision of an administrative authority
adversely affects legal rights of an individual, duty to act judicially is implicit.
But even in cases where there is no legal right, he may still have legitimate
expectation of receiving the benefit or privilege. Such expectation may arise
either from express promise or from existence of regular practice which the
applicant can reasonably expect to continue.

The doctrine of Legitimate Expectations means citizens may legitimately expect


to be treated fairly. This doctrine has been developed by courts both in the
contexts of reasonableness and natural justice. This doctrine made its first
appearance in Schmidt vs. Secy of State, wherein it was held that an alien who
was granted leave to enter the U.K. for a limited period had legitimate
expectation of being allowed to stay for the permitted period.

1|Page
According to this doctrine, a past practice of consulting before a decision is
taken may give rise to an expectation of consultation before any future decision
is taken. The past practice of a hearing before a decision is taken may give rise
to a legitimate expectation that a hearing will be given. And any decision
affecting such legitimate expectations is subject to judicial review. Indeed,
legitimate expectation affords the applicant standing to apply for judicial
review. A person, who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation
in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation for such claim. When
a case of legitimate expectation is made out by the applicant, the Court will
consider the prayer of the applicant for grant of relief.

Consequences

The existence of legitimate expectation may have a number of consequences. It


may give locus standi to a claimant to seek leave to apply for judicial review; it
may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat that expectation
without justifiable cause.

It may also mean that before defeating a person's legitimate expectation, the
authority should afford him an opportunity of making representation on the
matter. The claim based on the principle of legitimate expectation can be
sustained and the decision resulting in denial of such expectation can be
questioned provided the same is found to be unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary or
violative of principles of natural justice.

Limitations

The doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' has its own limitations. These are-

 The doctrine of legitimate expectation is only procedural and has no


substantive impact.

2|Page
 The doctrine does not apply to legislative activities. It cannot preclude
legislation.
 The doctrine does not apply if it is contrary to public policy or against the
security of State.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the doctrine of legitimate expectations
in essence imposes a duty to act fairly. Legitimate expectations may come in
various forms and owe their existence to different kinds of circumstances. It is
not possible to give an exhaustive list in the context of vast and fast expansion
of governmental activities.

Although there is some similarity between the doctrine of Estoppel and doctrine
of Legitimate Expectations, and arguments under the label of 'estoppel' and
'legitimate expectation' are substantially the same, both the doctrines are distinct
and separate. The element of acting to applicant’s detriment which is a sine qua
non for invoking estoppel is not a necessary ingredient of legitimate
expectation.

3|Page

You might also like