It is to be noted that the principle of law that is concerned with the “procedural and substantive legitimate expectation” still hasn’t got rid of all the uncertainties which have been associated with the implementation of it. This cannot be denied that there have been various attempts to make sure that this rule is clarified and adopted generally and to make it work as per the standards of the modern world. However, it is worth mentioning that various well known legal authors and critics have shown their concerns because they believe that the court has not taken a definite approach for this principle and the way courts use these two rules is not a uniform way. If we take an aerial look, we might think that these two rules are the same therefore we need to have a proper system for differentiating between the two and also for making an equilibrium among the two as well.

It is to be noted that unbiased processes and procedures are directly affected by the “Procedural Legitimate Expectation”. Furthermore, the above mentioned procedures are the one which a person has the right to get from the public entities. Apart from the presence of “interest of greater importance or a justified reason”, there is no situation as per which the public authorities have the power to move away from the already laid out procedures. However, this rule has its roots within the notion of “legal certainty”, leading towards the fact that the public entities should keep in mind the actions they did or the policies upon which the citizens can depend when they are looking for equitable conduct in the legal framework. A practical example for this can be observed during the case “Hamble”. Furthermore, it is to be noted that as per the “Procedural Legitimate Expectation” the public bodies should not be allowed to act in a way that contradicts the traditional and settled policies or actions of the public authorities. Hence, in order to preserve the administrative self determination and the fairness of the legal system, there has

To sum up, we can say that the ideology of “legitimate expectation” is based upon the rules that are formed for unbiasedness and application of the statements being formed by the public bodies. This cannot be denied that there have been various attempts to make sure that this rule is clarified and adopted generally and to make it work as per the standards of the modern world. However, this rule has its roots within the notion of “legal certainty”, leading towards the fact that the public entities should keep in mind the actions they did or the policies upon which the citizens can depend when they are looking for equitable conduct in the legal framework. A practical example for this can be observed during the case “Hamble”. Furthermore, it is to be noted that as per the “Procedural Legitimate Expectation” the public bodies should not be allowed to act in a way that contradicts the traditional and settled policies or actions of the public authorities. Hence, in order to preserve the administrative self determination and the fairness of the legal system, there has to be

hesitation, as they don’t ask for a particular action by the court and include relatively minimal expenses. This perspective has resulted in the prevention of undue burden on the judiciary while still adhering to the principle of “separation of powers”. The case “GCHQ” serves as the foundation for this rule. During this case, a “trade union” was being treated in such a way as if they had a “legitimate procedural expectation” which was mainly due to the fact that they were informed before making any change in the policy. In the same way, during the case of “Ex parte Taxi Fleet”, an intervention was made by the court for the prevention of an authority from changing a judgment without providing the affected groups with the chance to present their views, thereby maintaining the “procedural expectation”. Similarly, while dealing with a case involving illegal immigrants i.e. during “Ng Yuen Shiu”, it was established that these immigrants should also be entitled to defend themselves to ensure fair administration. It has focused upon signifying the requirement of the public bodies to stand by what they have said. The above-mentioned section of law is also found to be consistent with all the rules concerning the “procedural fairness”, illustrating the courts' consistent inclination towards enforcing “procedural legitimate expectations”, therefore making sure that the authorities uphold their commitments. But whenever the commitments made by the public entities can have a negative impact upon their authority, the courts avoid interfering in such cases. This is because such type of interference by the court, while keeping in view the case “Greenpeace”, shall be considered illegal.

Furthermore, it is to be noted that on the other side, “substantive legitimate expectation” is still one of most criticized and contentious portions of the law, due to the fact that it has lack of certainty and a number of other ambiguities which directly influences the way it impacts the legal justice and foreseeability. However, it is to be noted that this rule has implemented various obligations upon the public entities to follow specific procedures the moment they are going to make any decision, resulting in various issues and restricting the discretion of courts, therefore adding further complications in the maintenance of “separation of powers”. Moreover, the complications within the law concerning the substantive expectation was further underscored as courts rejected this approach and reverted to the restrictive stance seen in Re Findlay, as demonstrated in Hargreave, where the Hamble approach was deemed “erroneous in principle". Following this, in several other cases like the “Coughlan and Bibi” reaffirmed the need for the courts to protect “substantive legitimate expectations”. During the case “Coughlan”, it has been determined by the court that the health authority had risked a “substantive legitimate expectation” in Ms. Coughlan that she had the right for lifetime accommodation, and frustrating this legitimate expectation would be considered as illegal due to the fact that it constituted an "abuse of authority’s power". While keeping in view such instances, a 3 stage test was introduced by Lord Woolf, while stressing upon the fact that

that courts must determine the extent of the interests included, and if no overriding interest exists, the principles outlined in Hamble's case should prevail.

It has been demonstrated by the discretionary powers belonging to the courts for amending the purposes of the policy with “legitimate expectations”, as guided by the rule for justice. Some of the prominent legal authors and critics such as “Schonberger and Craig” have advocated for elevating for elevating the standard of "abuse of power", endorsing proportionality as the yardstick. However, it is to be noted that the standard for “substantive expectation” is still lacking certainty and isn’t accurate, lacking clear cut instructions for judicial application. Nonetheless, it has been stated by “TRS Allan” that notions of “unfairness” and "abuse of power" have offered the right direction, considering that fairness may vary across different scenarios involving legitimate expectation, thus necessitating a comprehensive examination. The ruling by the court during “Coughlan” has also raised concerns regarding the “separation of powers”, as it has been highlighted by “Elliot”. In the case of “Bibi”, it is to be noted that the courts prioritized the “principle of separation of powers” and determined that not all instances of "disappointed promises" warrant judicial intervention. It was acknowledged that the claimant harbored a legitimate expectation, but this did not impose an obligation on the council. Thus, the extent of fairness relied on the courts' interpretation of substantive legitimate expectations. The legal landscape further evolved in Wheeler v. Office of the Prime Minister, where political commitments were excluded from this category. Elliott regards this principle as a valued doctrine encompassing practices, assurances, policy pronouncements, and detrimental dependence, although the issue of detrimental reliance, although the issue of detrimental reliance is less prominent compared to procedural legitimate expectation, where it is indispensable for equitable adjudication.

concerns she had regarding the courts employing both approaches of “conferring and constraining rights”. Furthermore, the existing perspective of law is characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity, with both branches of legitimate expectation having distinct origins and thus being applicable differently to representations.The courts have made efforts to uphold the “separation of powers”, stringent regulations pose challenges to adherence. Even though the two forms originate from an assurance and lead towards similar tensions, they differ significantly in practicality and impact. Furthermore, it should be noted that “Procedural Legitimate Expectation” is clear cut and simpler when it comes to its implementation, opposing the “substantive legitimate expectation”, which can’t be clarified until its domain is described in the right way..

Moreover, it should be noted that ruling given by the SC during the case “R (on the Application of Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department” in 2021 dismissed the argument made by the CA, as per which the rejection was legitimate and did not breach the convention rights under “Article 8 or 14 of the ECHR”, therefore upholding the judgment given by “Secretary of State”.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form