The Secretary of State had refused an entry clearance for a child to be allowed into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption by the applicant, but had done so upon grounds nowhere mentioned in a Home Office circular letter apparently setting out the policy or criteria to be applied in dealing with such applications.
Held: A body acting as a decision-maker and consulting those affected by that decision, was not to be permitted to use a test that had not been discussed with those consulted and affected by it.
Parker LJ said: ‘I have no doubt that the Home Office letter afforded the applicant a reasonable expectation that the procedures it set out, which were just as certain in their terms as the question and answer in Mr Ng’s case, would be followed . . The Secretary of State is, of course, at liberty to change the policy but in my view, vis-a-vis the recipient of such a letter, a new policy can only be implemented after such recipient has been given a full and serious consideration whether there is some overriding public interest which justifies a departure from the procedures stated in the letter.’
Parker LJ, Dunn LJ, Watkins LJ (dissenting)
[1984] 1 WLR 1337, [1984] EWCA Civ 8
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited by:
Cited – Capenhurst and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 15-Sep-2004
The applicants, representatives of voluntary organisations, challenged decisions of the local authority to withdraw their funding, saying the decision making process had been unfair.
Held: Even if it was not bound to consult, if the authority . .
Cited – Regina (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 22-Nov-2005
The asylum applicant challenged a certificate given by the respondent that the claim for asylum was manifestly ill-founded. The respondent had made a mistake in applying the appropriate policy, but had sought to correct the error. The claimants . .
Cited – Badger Trust, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Admn 29-Aug-2014
The respondent had carried out the first round of a badger cull, subject to supervision and reporting by an independent expert panel. Promoises were made, the claimant said, that the panel’s role would be maintained for any subsequent round. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.213647