Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005...

Facts

• Mr. Nadarajah, a Tamil asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, arrived in the United Kingdom and applied for asylum.
• He was granted exceptional leave to remain, with an expectation—based on Home Office policy—of being granted indefinite leave to remain after a certain period.
• The Home Office later changed its policy and refused his application for indefinite leave to remain.
• Mr. Nadarajah asserted that the Home Office's refusal frustrated his legitimate expectation, which had arisen from the previous policy and his reliance upon it.

Issues

1. Whether the Home Office’s refusal to grant indefinite leave to remain, contrary to an established policy, unlawfully frustrated Mr. Nadarajah’s legitimate expectation.
2. Whether the correct legal test for frustrating a legitimate expectation was proportionality or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
3. Whether the decision to depart from the established policy was justified by sufficient public interest considerations.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Nadarajah’s appeal.
• The court held that proportionality, not Wednesbury unreasonableness, was the appropriate test in cases involving the frustration of legitimate expectations.
• The judgment clarified that any interference with a legitimate expectation must be justified as proportionate to the public interest pursued.
• The court found the Home Office’s departure from its previous policy to be disproportionate, particularly given Mr. Nadarajah's reliance and the insufficient public interest justification.

Legal Principles

• Proportionality is the dominant standard for determining the lawfulness of frustrating a legitimate expectation in administrative law.
• A claimant must show a clear and unambiguous promise or practice, actual reliance on it, and detriment resulting from its frustration.
• When deciding whether to frustrate a legitimate expectation, courts must balance individual interests against the public interest and determine if there is a compelling justification.
• A change of government policy may be permissible but must not unfairly prejudice individuals who relied on the prior policy.
• The proportionality framework aligns with human rights principles and ensures rigorous judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions.

Conclusion

Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 established proportionality as the central test for determining when administrative authorities may lawfully frustrate legitimate expectations, thereby enhancing the protection of individuals against disproportionate exercises of governmental power and marking a significant development in UK administrative law.