Rowan Pennington-Benton has co-authored an article on “Legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review” in the prominent legal publication, Out-law with Craig Connal QC.
ANALYSIS: A number of recent judicial decisions – particularly a recent ruling by the UK’s top judges in the United Policyholders case – have gone some way towards clarifying what counts as a breach of ‘legitimate expectation’ by a public body.
The law of legitimate expectation has been one of the more interesting developing areas of the law of judicial review in recent years. It signals a shift away from the more traditional grounds on which to challenge the decisions of public bodies, such as breaches of procedural rules and misdirection on the law.
At its most basic, a legitimate expectation claim is based on the assumption that, where a public body states that it will or will not do something, a person who has reasonably relied on that statement should be entitled to enforce it; if necessary, through the courts. For a legitimate expectation to arise, the public body’s statement must be clear, unambiguous and without qualification. Interference with legitimate expectations may be justified on public policy grounds….
You can continue reading the article on the Out-law website.
