Nadarajah v Secretary, [2005] EWCA Civ 1363

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

In 2022, the Willowshire Council introduced a policy offering local nonprofits the indefinite use of public libraries for weekend fundraising events. Maplecrest Theater Group, an established nonprofit, relied on this policy and invested in new outreach programs. One year later, the Council abruptly changed its policy without notice due to increased operational costs, revoking Maplecrest’s access to the library space. Maplecrest claims that the Council’s decision frustrates its legitimate expectation formed by the previous policy. The group now seeks judicial review, arguing the Council’s decision violates the principle of proportionality.


Which of the following statements best reflects the judicial approach to whether the Council’s action is lawful under the principle established in Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363?

Introduction

Proportionality serves as a critical principle within administrative law, particularly concerning the frustration of legitimate expectations. This doctrine dictates that any interference with a legitimate expectation must be proportionate to the public interest pursued. The Court of Appeal's judgment in Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 significantly clarified the application of proportionality in such cases. This case established that the relevant test is not whether the decision-maker's action was Wednesbury unreasonable, but whether it was proportionate. Key requirements for establishing a successful claim based on legitimate expectation include a clear and unambiguous promise or practice, reliance on that promise or practice, and detriment resulting from the frustration of the expectation. The court must then balance the individual's interest against the public interest to determine whether the decision to frustrate the expectation was lawful.

The Facts of Nadarajah

Mr. Nadarajah, a Tamil asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. He had previously been granted exceptional leave to remain, with the expectation of indefinite leave to remain after a certain period, based on Home Office policy. However, the policy changed, and his application for indefinite leave to remain was refused. Mr. Nadarajah argued that the Home Office had frustrated his legitimate expectation based on the previous policy.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Nadarajah's appeal. The court held that the appropriate test for frustrating a legitimate expectation was proportionality, not Wednesbury unreasonableness. Lord Justice Laws, delivering the leading judgment, emphasized that the court's role is not to substitute its judgment for that of the decision-maker, but rather to assess whether the decision to frustrate the expectation was proportionate in light of the competing interests. The court found that the Home Office's decision was disproportionate, considering Mr. Nadarajah's reliance on the previous policy and the lack of compelling public interest justification for its departure from the established practice.

Proportionality as the Dominant Standard

The Nadarajah judgment solidified the principle of proportionality as the correct test in legitimate expectation cases. This aligns the approach with human rights law, where proportionality is a well-established principle. The judgment provides a structured framework for analyzing whether the interference with a legitimate expectation is justified. This framework involves assessing the weight of the individual's interest, the importance of the public interest objective, and whether the interference is the least restrictive means of achieving that objective.

Implications for Administrative Law

Nadarajah has had a significant impact on administrative law. It has provided greater clarity and structure to the analysis of legitimate expectation claims. By emphasizing proportionality, the courts have afforded individuals greater protection against arbitrary or disproportionate governmental action. This reinforces the rule of law and ensures that decisions affecting individuals' rights are subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the case established that a change in policy, while generally permissible, cannot be implemented in a manner that unfairly prejudices individuals who have relied on the previous policy.

Distinguishing Nadarajah from Coughlan

While both Nadarajah and R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 concern legitimate expectations, they represent different categories of cases. Coughlan involved a "substantive" legitimate expectation, where the individual had a specific promise regarding a particular outcome. Nadarajah, on the other hand, involved a "procedural" legitimate expectation, based on established practice. The proportionality test, as established in Nadarajah, is generally applicable to procedural legitimate expectation cases. In Coughlan, the court identified three potential responses to a legitimate expectation: fulfilling the expectation, paying compensation, or giving reasons for not fulfilling it. The stricter approach in Coughlan stems from the nature of the specific promise made to the individual.

Conclusion

Nadarajah v Secretary of State for the Home Department represents a landmark judgment in administrative law. The case firmly established proportionality as the governing principle in cases concerning the frustration of legitimate expectations. This decision provided a clear framework for judicial review in such cases, ensuring that administrative decisions are subject to appropriate scrutiny. The judgment's emphasis on balancing individual interests against public interests provides a more balanced and just approach to administrative decision-making, strengthening the protection of individuals' rights and supporting the rule of law. The distinction between the approaches in Nadarajah and Coughlan highlights the varying levels of protection afforded to individuals based on the nature of the legitimate expectation in question. This case law development demonstrates the ongoing development of administrative law principles aimed at achieving fairness and accountability in government actions.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal