Author: Elliott, Mark

Source: Judicial Review, Volume 5, Number 1, March 2000 , pp. 27-32(6)

Publisher: Hart Publishing

Abstract:

The protection which courts may afford to legitimate expectations has generated a good deal of controversy in recent years. It is well established that an individual may require the adoption of a fair procedure (e.g. consultation) before his expectation is frustrated by a public authority. However, while such protection is entirely adequate when the expectation concerns only the following of a procedure, different considerations arise when it relates to the receipt of a substantive benefit (e.g. a grant or licence). In such situations, is the court's role limited to requiring due process before the expectation may lawfully be frustrated, or can the court go further by precluding the agency from denying the individual the substance of his expectation? Precisely this problem fell to be decided by the Court of Appeal in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p. Coughlan.1 This article will argue that the conclusions reached in that case are not clearly supported by authority, and that they are inconsistent with the broader public law framework within which the law of legitimate expectation subsists.

Keywords: R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p. Co; judicial review; substantive expectations; legitimate expectation

Document Type: Research article

Publication date: 2000-03-01

More about this publication?

• Judicial Review is now firmly established as the UK's leading journal for lawyers engaged in judicial review, catering for both practitioners and academics. It offers invaluable insights from today's foremost judicial review experts, combining analysis of general judicial review matters with practical information and guidelines for use by practitioners in the prepartation and conduct of applications for judicial review. The journal includes short and accessible items on the law, practice and procedure and recent cases. There is coverage of sub-topics within judicial review such as constitutional change, prison cases, commercial, and environmental judicial review. Other popular features are reviews of the academic literature, surveys of the leading cases, case commentaries and summaries of recent research.

• Editorial Board
• Information for Authors
• Subscribe to this Title
• Information for Advertisers
• Contents
• Sample Paper
• Email alerts (Hart books and journals)
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Law ,  Political Science ,  Social Science (General)
• By this author: Elliott, Mark

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers