R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ...

Facts

• Ms. Anufrijeva, a Lithuanian asylum seeker, had her income support withdrawn by the Home Secretary.
• The Home Secretary argued the withdrawal was effective from the date of the internal decision, even though Ms. Anufrijeva was not informed of it at that time.
• The case reached the House of Lords, which assessed when a decision affecting an individual's rights becomes legally effective.
• The judgment clarified the distinction between actual communication (direct notification) and constructive communication (when an individual has knowledge of the decision).
• The principle established was framed in the context of ensuring legal certainty and procedural fairness in administrative decision-making.

Issues

1. Whether a decision affecting an individual's rights can take legal effect before being effectively communicated to that individual.
2. Whether mere internal decisions or awareness of general policy can amount to constructive communication of a specific administrative decision.
3. What exceptions, if any, exist to the requirement of effective communication before a decision may become operative.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that a decision altering an individual's rights is effective only once it has been communicated to the person affected.
• The argument that internal decision-making alone was sufficient to effect the withdrawal was rejected.
• It was established that actual or constructive communication is necessary but mere awareness of policy or law does not amount to communication of a specific decision.
• Limited exceptions to the communication requirement were recognized, but these are narrowly construed and carefully scrutinized to maintain fairness.

Legal Principles

• A legally effective administrative decision that affects rights requires effective communication to the individual concerned.
• Actual communication involves direct notification; constructive communication applies only when the individual has genuine knowledge of the decision and its implications.
• Procedural fairness and legal certainty demand that individuals have an opportunity to understand and challenge administrative decisions before they take effect.
• Exceptions to communication are limited, mainly to cases of urgency or deliberate avoiding of notice by the individual, but are tightly limited to protect the right to be informed.
• Failure to communicate a decision can render it unlawful and may give rise to claims, as affirmed in subsequent cases.

Conclusion

R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department established that administrative decisions affecting rights must be effectively communicated to become legally operative. This principle safeguards procedural fairness, legal certainty, and the rule of law, with only narrow exceptions permitted and broader impact confirmed in later case law.