Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] U...

Facts

• Mr. Paponette was appointed as a magistrate in Trinidad and Tobago, with an expectation of serving his full term.
• The government terminated his appointment prematurely as part of a restructuring of the magistracy.
• Mr. Paponette challenged this decision, claiming a breach of his substantive legitimate expectation.

Issues

1. Whether Mr. Paponette had a substantive legitimate expectation to serve his full term as magistrate.
2. Whether the government's premature termination of his appointment was a lawful override of that expectation.
3. Whether the proportionality principle was properly applied in justifying the frustration of Mr. Paponette’s legitimate expectation.

Decision

• The Privy Council held that Mr. Paponette had a substantive legitimate expectation to serve his full term.
• The government’s restructuring of the magistracy was accepted as a legitimate objective.
• However, the court found that the termination of Mr. Paponette’s appointment was disproportionate, as the government failed to consider less intrusive alternatives.
• The government did not meet the minimal impairment requirement, making its action unlawful.

Legal Principles

• Proportionality is a critical principle constraining the exercise of public power in administrative law.
• An interference with a substantive legitimate expectation is lawful only if justified by a sufficiently important objective, connected rationally to the means adopted, and no more drastic than necessary.
• The proportionality test comprises three stages: (1) existence of a legitimate aim; (2) rational connection to that aim; (3) minimal impairment of individual rights.
• Even where a substantive legitimate expectation exists, public authorities may act contrary to it only if their action is proportionate.
• The decision in Paponette was further contextualized by later cases such as Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 2) [2013] UKSC 39 and R (Daly) [2001] UKHL 26, reinforcing the need for rigorous scrutiny when overriding legitimate expectations.

Conclusion

Paponette v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 32 confirms that substantive legitimate expectations in administrative law may only be overridden where the public authority’s action is proportionate—serving a legitimate aim, being rationally connected to that aim, and impairing individual rights no more than necessary. The case emphasises the judiciary’s role in balancing individual expectations and public interests through robust application of the proportionality principle.