Facts
- Mr. McInnes, a boxing manager, applied multiple times to the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) for a manager's license.
- Each application was refused by the BBBC without providing detailed reasons.
- The case concerned the refusal to grant a new license rather than the revocation of an existing one.
- The distinction between refusal of a license application and forfeiture (revocation) of an existing right was central to the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the procedural fairness owed by a decision-making body differs between applications for a license and forfeiture of an existing license or right.
- What standard of procedural fairness applies when a domestic tribunal refuses a license application, in contrast to decisions involving revocation of existing privileges.
- How the concept of legitimate expectation and the duty to act fairly are applied in the context of licensing and disciplinary decisions.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning MR, held that applications for privileges such as a license attract a less stringent duty of fairness than forfeiture of existing rights.
- In application cases, the applicant is owed fair consideration but not an oral hearing or detailed reasons.
- Forfeiture cases, involving the loss of an existing right, require a higher standard of procedural fairness, typically including reasons and an opportunity to be heard.
- The court emphasized that the duty to act fairly is contextual, varying depending on the nature of the decision and the parties’ legitimate expectations.
- The legitimate expectation of a fair process does not confer an automatic entitlement to the license.
Legal Principles
- The standard of procedural fairness in administrative law is determined by the nature of the right at stake: lower for applications, higher for forfeitures.
- In application cases, a decision-maker must act honestly and without bias, but robust procedural safeguards are generally unnecessary.
- In forfeiture cases, natural justice requires heightened procedural protections such as notification of reasons and a chance to be heard.
- The duty to act fairly is not fixed; it depends on factors including the type of decision, the body involved, and the individual's legitimate expectation.
- The distinction between rights and legitimate expectations is key in assessing the fairness owed in licensing and disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion
McInnes v Onslow-Fane established that procedural fairness varies between applications and forfeiture in administrative licensing decisions, providing a foundational framework for determining the requisite duties of fairness based on context and the nature of the affected rights.