This doctrine is interpreted broadly to protect both substantive and procedural expectations. [3] In Wood v. Nestlé[4], the applicant was employed by the respondent under numerous fixed-term contracts for an uninterrupted period of three years. The Respondent`s employer had promised the Applicant permanent employment. The respondent then refused to place the applicant in a permanent position. The Court found that it was clear from the evidence that the applicant had been made clear that she would be transferred to the respondent`s permanent staff, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that she would be recruited indefinitely. The Tribunal therefore found that the respondent`s failure to appoint the applicant to a permanent position constituted an unfair labour practice and awarded compensation to the applicant. Ii. Workers` rights – rights arising from the termination of an employment relationship; and An individual may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the following places: In R (Bibi) v Newham London Borough Council (2001),[12] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that if the decision in question is “shaped by social and political value judgments about spending priorities”, It is more appropriate for the authority to make the decision: [82] And the court may order the authority to review its decision only in light of the person`s substantial legitimate expectations. [83] The doctrine of the protection of legitimate expectations was first developed in English law as a ground for judicial review in administrative law in order to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority withdraws from representation in respect of a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness and is intended to prevent authorities from abusing their power. From: legitimate expectation in A Dictionary of Law » “When it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals,” Justice Scalia wrote.
At the heart of change is a man`s right to retire to his own home and be free from unreasonable government interference. Scalia added: “This right would have little practical value if state agents could stand on the porch or side yard of a house and search for evidence with impunity.” An important step in the development of legitimate procedural expectations was Lord Fraser of Tullybelton`s observation in Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu (1983)[9] that “if an authority has promised to follow a particular procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it acts fairly and keeps its promise as long as implementation does not interfere with its legal obligation”. [44] The courts consider not only the adequacy of the trust, but also other considerations, such as the nature of the representation. (1995). [58] Justice Stephen Sedley sought to broaden the Court`s legitimate expectations to include “substantial protection of substantial legitimate expectations.” [59] He rejected the argument that legitimate expectations are limited to procedural grounds, stating, “It is difficult to see why it is less unfair to refute a legitimate expectation that the decision-maker will or will not do something than to thwart the legitimate expectation that the applicant will be heard before the decision-maker decides whether or not to take a particular action.” [54] [60] The doctrine of protection of legitimate expectations is intended to protect the rights of individuals in general and claimants in particular to a fair procedural administration when their legitimate rights or expectations are compromised or threatened. Although the doctrine of the protection of legitimate expectations is still expounded, the labour and labour courts have found it applicable to labour matters. The courts have continued to adopt this doctrine of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Thus, in Health Professions Council v. MC GOWN,[11] the Court held that the doctrine of the protection of legitimate expectations in Traub extends the principle of natural justice. In Minister of Information, Posts & Telecommunications v PTC Managerial Employees Workers Committee, cited in Wilberforce Chimutimbira v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe held that legitimate expectations include expectations that go beyond enforceable rights, provided they have a reasonable and rational basis. The above can be established that the doctrine of legitimate expectations or expected interest has become a norm, rule and practice in international labour and has been recognized and applied as such by the courts. In addition, Anton Steenkamp of the South African Labour Court in the South African case Merafong City Local Municipality v. South African Local Government Bargaining Council & Ors[12] upheld the arbitration panel`s award, which ruled as follows: Expectations are not legitimate if they oblige a public authority to violate its legal obligations. [21] This only applies if the legislative provisions are diametrically opposed to representation. In other words, legal regulation will prevent the courts from meeting expectations. However, a legislative provision that merely permits, but does not require the authority, to violate the expectation does not necessarily justify such a violation. Despite initial opposition to the courts` acceptance of this doctrine,[45] the landmark GCHQ case established the procedural protection of legitimate expectations. [40] In this case, strikes by officials at government communications headquarters destabilized operations and were considered a threat to national security. The UK government took swift action to restrict GCHQ workers` rights to join trade unions, allowing them to belong only to an approved staff association in the department.
The complainant organisation challenged this decision on the grounds that it should have been consulted on the basis of long-standing practice. In his judgment, Lord Fraser legitimately regarded the term as synonymous with “reasonable” and identified two ways of giving rise to a legitimate expectation, namely “either of an express undertaking entered into on behalf of a public authority or of the existence of a due process which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue”. [38] The payment of damages (financial compensation) by a public authority is relevant to legitimate expectations in two respects. First, where the authority has voluntarily paid damages to a person for breach of legitimate expectations, the court could conclude that the authority has not abused its power and that it is therefore not necessary to compel the person to comply with that expectation. [84] Second, it was suggested that if it is found that the authority has breached a legitimate expectation, instead of ordering that the expectation be satisfied, the court could order the payment of damages. However, a serious difficulty with this proposal is that English law does not currently recognise financial compensation as a remedy for breaches of public law. A person can only recover damages if he also has a parallel cause of action under private law (e.g. contract law or tort law) and the failure to fulfil a legitimate expectation can only justify in rare cases. [85] In R. v. Commissioners of Custom and Excise, ex parte F&I Services Ltd. (2001) [86] Sedley J.
referred to the possibility of damages as an appeal,[87] but commented:[88] The procedural protection of legitimate expectations, rooted in the principle of natural justice, protects the procedural interests of individuals in public law. While applicants` procedural expectations can take different forms, they are aspects of the “right to be heard”[40] enjoyed by a person affected by a decision. [42] The courts of the United Kingdom have developed this doctrine extensively to ensure that the rules of natural justice are respected in order to promote good administration and prevent abuse by decision-makers. [43] In Singapore, the High Court recognized that a statement that consultation will take place before a public authority makes a decision may give rise to a legitimate procedural expectation, even if no claimant has yet succeeded in demonstrating the existence of such an expectation. [94] However, there are exceptions to the reasonable expectation of privacy assessment.
