## 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

1. Whether the procedural fairness owed by a decision-making body differs between applications for a license and forfeiture of an existing license or right.
2. What standard of procedural fairness applies when a domestic tribunal refuses a license application, in contrast to decisions involving revocation of existing privileges.
3. 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.

McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520