header-logo header-logo

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

A fair ride?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll