- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v North and East Devon HA ex p Coughlan (1999)
Core Principle:
The court outlined three possible outcomes when a public body acts contrary to a legitimate expectation:
(a) Low Intensity Review (Wednesbury Review):
Core Principle:
- Legitimate Expectation of Substantive Benefit: When a public authority creates a legitimate expectation of a substantial benefit, frustrating that expectation can be an abuse of power.
- Appellant: Tetraplegic woman, permanent resident at Mardon House (NHS facility).
- Promise: Express promise from the NHS that Mardon House would be her home for as long as she wished.
- NHS Distinction: NHS differentiated between "general" and "specialist" nursing services.
- Policy Change: Health Authority (HA) reviewed care options based on guidance from the Secretary of State, determining residents didn't meet NHS care criteria.
- Closure: HA decided to close Mardon House without alternative care provisions.
- Judicial Review: Appellant sought judicial review; initial judge quashed the HA's decision.
- Appeal: HA appealed this decision.
- Appeal Dismissed: The Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision, dismissing the HA's appeal.
- Legitimate Expectation Established: The appellant had a legitimate expectation that the HA would provide her care at Mardon House.
- This expectation arose from a lawful promise of an important benefit limited to a few individuals.
The court outlined three possible outcomes when a public body acts contrary to a legitimate expectation:
(a) Low Intensity Review (Wednesbury Review):
- Authority only needs to bear in mind its previous policy or representation.
- The authority gives the previous policy the weight it thinks right.
- Court is confined to review on Wednesbury grounds. (i.e. irrationality/unreasonableness)
- This is the lowest level of scrutiny.*
- Promise/practice induces a legitimate expectation of being consulted.
- Court requires an opportunity for consultation unless there's an overriding reason to resile from it.
- Court itself will judge the adequacy of the reason advanced for the change in policy.
- This focuses on the process by which the decision was made.*
- Promise/practice has induced a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit.
- Court decides whether frustrating that expectation is an abuse of power by adopting a new course of action.
- Court is not restricted to reviewing the decision on Wednesbury grounds.
- This is the highest level of scrutiny, where the court examines the merits of the decision.*
- Category (c) Applied: The court determined this case fell into category (c) - legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit.
- Fairness Required Adherence: Fairness required the HA not to resile from their promise.
- No Overriding Justification: There was no overriding justification for the HA to break its promise.
- Unfairness and Abuse of Power: The HA's failure to weigh the conflicting interests correctly was unfair and an abuse of power.
- This case clarifies the concept of legitimate expectation, particularly concerning substantive benefits.
- It demonstrates that public bodies can be held accountable for promises they make, especially when those promises induce reliance.
- The level of judicial review depends on the nature of the legitimate expectation (procedural vs. substantive).
- Courts will scrutinize decisions that frustrate legitimate expectations of substantive benefits more intensely than decisions that merely disappoint procedural expectations.
0 Comments