A number of taxi cab owners challenged a decision of the Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision, the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers of hackney cabs would not be increased until the proposed legislation, which included provisions for controlling private hire vehicles, had been enacted by Parliament.
Held: (Majority) On account of this public representation, the applicants were ‘justifiably aggrieved’ by the council’s subsequent unfair conduct. Lord Denning obiter: Even in the absence of such a public undertaking, the applicants would have had a right to be consulted: ‘It is perhaps putting it a little high to say that they [Liverpool Corporation] are exercising judicial functions. They may be said to be exercising an administrative function. But even so, in our modern approach, they must act fairly: and the Court will see that they do so.
To apply that principle here; suppose the corporation proposed to reduce the number of taxicabs from 300 to 200, it would be their duty to hear the taxicab owners’ association: because their members would be greatly affected. They would certainly be persons aggrieved. Likewise suppose the corporation propose to increase the number of taxicabs from 300 to 350 or 400 or more it is the duty of the corporation to hear those affected before coming to a decision adverse to their interests.’ Lord Roskill and Sir Gordon Willmer emphasised the unequivocal public undertaking given by the Respondents. Roskill L.J.: ‘It has been said that the council and its relevant committee and sub-committee were never under any duty to hear any representations from the Applicants. That may or may not be correct. In the light of what has happened, I do not think it necessary to express any opinion upon that question…It seems to me to allow the council to resile from that undertaking without notice to and representations from the Applicants is to condone unfairness in a case where the duty was to act fairly.’ Sir Gordon Willmer: ‘It seems to me that in these very special circumstances, having regard to the history of how this matter had been dealt with in the past, and having regard especially to the giving of the undertaking, the Applicants are justified in regarding themselves as ‘aggrieved’ by what I can only describe as unfair treatment on the part of Liverpool Corporation.’ An explicit representation had been made and relied upon. A legitimate expectation had been created.
Judges:
Lord Denning, Lord Roskill and Sir Gordon Willmer
Citations:
[1972] 2 QB 299, [1972] 2 All ER 589, [1972] 2 WLR 1262
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Birkdale District Electric Supply Co. Ltd v The Corporation of Southport 1926
The appellants, having bound themselves not to exercise their discretion in the raising of electricity prices, were held not to have incompetently fettered their discretion, bearing in mind the commercial purposes for which the discretion was . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu PC 21-Feb-1983
An illegal entrant into Hong Kong claimed that he was entitled by a legitimate expectation to a hearing before a deportation order might be made against him, there having been an announcement that persons in the respondent’s position would be . .
Cited – Regina v Department of Education and Employment ex parte Begbie CA 20-Aug-1999
A statement made by a politician as to his intentions on a particular matter if elected could not create a legitimate expectation as regards the delivery of the promise after elected, even where the promise would directly affect individuals, and the . .
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 – Bates v Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone ChD 1972
A solicitor applied to the court ex parte to restrain a committee acting under delegated powers from making an order changing the basis of charging for conveyancing on the ground that the committee was obliged to allow more time for consultation and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.187439