Legitimate Expectations In Administrative Law

The recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. Although the substantive form of legitimate expectation adopted in Coughlan was quickly accepted by English courts and received a generally favourable response from public law scholars, the doctrine of that case has largely been rejected in other common law jurisdictions. The central principles of Coughlan have been rejected by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK for a range of reasons, such as incompatibility with local constitutional doctrine, or because they mark an undesirable drift towards merits review. The sceptical and critical reception to Coughlan outside England is a striking contrast to the reception the case received within the UK. This book provides a detailed scholarly analysis of these issues and considers the doctrine of legitimate expectations both in England and elsewhere in the common law world.

This book presents a comparison of the development of legitimate expectations and proportionality in European and English law against the different traditions of administrative law. While these two principles are well established in European law,only in recent years have the English courts years sought to integrate them into the common law and have experienced various difficulties in doing so. This book seeks to understand the motivation behind this development, explain why the English courts have been troubled by the principles and suggest how such difficulties can be resolved. It will be of interest to all administrative lawyers, both in practice and in academe. It will also be of interest to EU lawyers, particularly those interested in EU public law.

Presents a comparison of the development in European and English law of two legal principles, legitimate expectations and proportionality, against the different traditions of administrative law. Looks at case law of the English courts and the European Court of Justice, and explains why English courts have been troubled by legitimate expectations and proportionality and how such difficulties can be resolved. Suggests that problems associated with these principles are connected to different cultural approaches to the appropriate role of law in the modern state. Of interest to administrative lawyers. The author teaches law at the University of Manchester. Distributed by ISBS. c. Book News Inc.

This original and stimulating book is the first systematic study of the principle of `legitimate expectations' in administrative law to appear in the English language. The notion of reasonable or legitimate expectations has played a central role in the development of administrative law over the last thirty years and it remains one of the most contentious and most frequently invoked grounds of judicial review. In this book Dr Schonberg provides a detailed, comparative, and critical analysis of that notion He begins by clarifying why administrative law should protect expectations at all, by linking expectations to fairness, trust in administration, and the Rule of Law with its requirements of legal certainty and formal equality. In the light of this framework he examines in detail the principles and rules which contribute to the protection of expectations. The scope of this analysis is broad, looking both at procedural and substantive principles of administrative law as wellas principles of tort liability and stautory compensation. In all of these areas, English law is carefully compared with French and EC law and is shown how the three legal systems often reach similar outcomes by the application of different legal principles and rules. The current state of English law is examined critically in the light of the comparative study of French and EC law, and a number of original suggestions for legal reform are presented. They include the adoption of: a generalprinciple of irrevocability of intra vires administrative decisions, a distinct principle of substantive legitimate expectations subject to a `significant imbalance' threshold for judicial intervention, and a statutory right to compensation for loss caused by `sufficiently serious' violations of public law.

It is an unfortunate but unavoidable feature of even well-ordered democratic societies that governmental administrative agencies often create legitimate expectations (procedural or substantive) on the part of non-governmental agents (individual citizens, groups, businesses, organizations, institutions, and instrumentalities) but find themselves unable to fulfil those expectations for reasons of justice, the public interest, severe financial constraints, and sometimes harsh political realities. How governmental administrative agencies, operating on behalf of society, handle the creation and frustration of legitimate expectations implicates a whole host of values that we have reason to care about, including under non-ideal conditions-not least justice, fairness, autonomy, the rule of law, responsible uses of power, credible commitments, reliance interests, security of expectations, stability, democracy, parliamentary supremacy, and legitimate authority. This book develops a new theory of legitimate expectations for public administration drawing on normative arguments from political and legal theory. Brown begins by offering a new account of the legitimacy of legitimate expectations. He argues that it is the very responsibility of governmental administrative agencies for creating expectations that ought to ground legitimacy, as opposed to the justice or the legitimate authority of those agencies and expectations. He also clarifies some of the main ways in which agencies can be responsible for creating expectations. Moreover, he argues that governmental administrative agencies should be held liable for losses they directly cause by creating and then frustrating legitimate expectations on the part of non-governmental agents and, if liable, have an obligation to make adequate compensation payments in respect of those losses.

Introduction -- The Development of Modern Administrative Law -- The Anatomy of Administrative Law -- Procedural Review -- Legitimate Expectations -- Standing -- Monism -- Conclusion.

The protection of legitimate expectations appears to be a key concept of administrative law in Europe; it defines the legal position of the individual vis-à-vis the public authorities and is, thus, a gateway for constitutional considerations in administrative law. This book presents the results of a comparative research project dealing with the question if, to what extent, and in which ways the legitimate expectations of private parties are considered in procedures leading to a primary administrative decision and, where available, in subsequent review procedures before administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. Furthermore, the project examines if, and to what extent, European and national legal orders, as well as international legal regimes, guarantee compensation in cases where provisions concerning the protection of legitimate expectations have been disregarded. The contributions to the book, including surveys of the theoretical and philosophical background, country reports and comparative analyses, are written by scholars from 16 European countries, giving an insight into the various legal systems, their understanding of, and their methods of interpreting and applying, administrative law.

A new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.