not possible to advise with much degree of certainty ether such a course would be successful (my own view is that the courts would be very hesitant to act where the real question at issue is how much money Parliament is to be asked to provide for particular purpose), and, in any event, if successful, drawing board again. aware of the areas in proceedings.
a
it is a question of going back to the It would be as well, however, to be which HMG would be vunerable in such
"
16. I think there are three possible areas: the question of legitimate expectations, the question of the relevance or irrelevance of the reasons for the decision, a matter which may be considered together with that of legitimate expectations, and the question of irrationality. There were no doubt reasonable expectations among Hong Kong members of HMOCS that they would receive similar treatment as that accorded in other territories, but it
is questionable whether, on some authorities, particularly Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case, expectations derived from what has been done in respect of others constitutes legitimate expectations for oneself. In any event, as it is put in Gardner on Administrative Law at page 188: "Legitimate expectations now seem to play two parts in relation to hearings. First, the fact that legitimate expectations in a matter may be defeated by the substance of a decision will generate audi alterem partem obligations [i.e. to hear the objections and contentions of the party affected by the decision]. Secondly, legitimate expectation of being afforded a hearing (prior to any decisin or action) may itself generate the right to such a hearing. The first of these considerations could be relevant to the present matter, and would be relevant to the extent of our consultations with the HMOCS Association. We have tried to guard against accusations of inadequate consultations as regards the proposals for the current scheme, and we need to go on consulting until final decisions are taken. essential weakness here is that we have so far sought to exclude discussion or consultation about two particular elements, the right to retire and sterling safeguards, and if we were to persist in this, it would count against us in any proceedings.
I also thing that the weakness of the reasons we have SO far deployed would also tend
tend to count against us, though that would not necessarily be significant against the argument that HMG must be free to determine how much public money is to be sought for any particular As to irrationality, that has been variously defined as a decision "so out ragious in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it" (GCHQ case) and as "a decision so absurd that the decision- taker must have taken leave of its senses" (Notts CC v S/S for the Environment); and Lord Denning has made the point that the Crown cannot be estopped from using its powers when acting for the public good "even if this may work some injustice or unfairness to a private individual" ( ex p Ruddock).
I think it unlikely that
purpose.
But the
even if a court were to come to the view that a scheme was shabby, grudging and niggardly to a high drgree, it must necessarily come to the conclusion that it is irrational.
9
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.