header-logo header-logo

A fair ride?

22 September 2011 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7482 / Categories: Features , Public
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson rides the rollercoaster of public authority fairness

Parents and public authorities, although often at variance, do have something in common. Those aggrieved by their decisions are likely to cry (with greater or lesser degrees of sophistication) “It’s not fair!”. And while traditional judicial review may be unavailable in respect of parental decisions on bedtime, it certainly is in respect of unlawful decisions of governmental authorities.

And (by way of long evolution from the cardinal principles of natural justice) such authorities are expected to take decisions fairly. These principles are that no-one is to be a judge in their own cause (demotically, nemo iudex in causa sua) and the obligation to afford the parties a fair opportunity of presenting their respective views on the matters in issue (audi alteram partem—hear the other side).

The law of public authority fairness is part of an extensive suite of principles applied by the courts when supervising the decisions of public authorities to avoid potential abuse of power. These include Wednesbury reasonableness, the fiduciary duty, adherence to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll