From Heresy to Orthodoxy: Substantive Legitimate Expectations in English Public Law

I recently finished work on a paper examining the development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Entitled ‘From Heresy to Orthodoxy: Substantive Legitimate Expectations in English Public Law’, the piece begins by noting that while English administrative law is unusual in the common law world for its embrace of the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation, it is only 20 years since the doctrine—or at least significant aspects of it—were judicially castigated as ‘heretical’. Against that background, my paper charts the development of the substantive legitimate expectation doctrine over recent decades, and critically examines the reasons for its transformation from heresy to orthodoxy. It … Continue reading From Heresy to Orthodoxy: Substantive Legitimate Expectations in English Public Law

Mandalia v Home Secretary [2015] UKSC 59: Legitimate expectations and the consistent application of policy

The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant’s visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency’s own policy, the applicant ought to have been permitted to submit such information. The Court allowed the appellant’s appeal, holding that the Agency’s failure to extend to him the benefit of its own policy made its decision unlawful. This conclusion seems instinctively fair, as does the self-evident proposition — that … Continue reading Mandalia v Home Secretary [2015] UKSC 59: Legitimate expectations and the consistent application of policy

From legitimate expectation to a doctrine of consistency: DM v Home Secretary

Ever since the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Rashid) v Home Secretary [2005] EWCA Civ 744, the extent to which knowledge of the relevant policy or undertaking is required if a legitimate expectation is to be founded has been unclear. In Rashid, the Court of Appeal appeared to be willing to hold that a legitimate expectation had been established even though the claimant was, at the relevant time, unaware of the policy that he later sought to invoke. Continue reading “From legitimate expectation to a doctrine of consistency: DM v Home Secretary”