## Facts

- A group of homeless families were promised permanent housing by the London Borough of Newham.
- Relying on this promise, the families declined alternative housing options offered to them.
- Newham later rescinded the offer of permanent housing, citing administrative errors.
- As a result, the families’ positions worsened compared to the situation had the promise not been made.

## Issues

1. Whether a clear and unambiguous representation by a public authority, relied upon to an individual's detriment, establishes detrimental reliance.
2. Whether detrimental reliance obligates the public authority to fulfill its original promise or merely reconsider its decision.
3. How the procedural remedy of reconsideration differs from a substantive enforcement of legitimate expectation.
4. The relevance and distinction between _Bibi_ and _Ex parte Coughlan_ regarding the nature of the remedy for legitimate expectations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that detrimental reliance requires a clear and reasonable representation by the authority, reasonable reliance by the individual, and demonstrable detriment suffered as a result.
- In the present case, Newham’s promises were clear, reliance was reasonable, and detriment was shown.
- The court ruled that the remedy where detrimental reliance is established is for the authority to conduct a genuine reconsideration of its decision, giving proper weight to the detriment suffered, rather than being compelled to fulfil the original promise.
- Distinguished _Bibi_ from _Ex parte Coughlan_, clarifying that in the usual case detrimental reliance only triggers a procedural right to reconsideration rather than a substantive right to enforcement of the promise.

## Legal Principles

- Detrimental reliance comprises a clear representation by a public authority, reasonable reliance by the individual, and tangible detriment as a result.
- Establishment of detrimental reliance generally grants a procedural right to genuine reconsideration, not a substantive right to enforcement.
- Reconsideration requires the authority to account genuinely for the detriment suffered, but not necessarily to fulfil the original promise.
- The distinction exists between cases granting substantive expectations (as in _Coughlan_) and procedural rights (as in _Bibi_).
- The principles advance fairness and accountability in public administration by ensuring authorities do not act arbitrarily when altering representations or policies.

## Conclusion

R (Bibi) v Newham LBC established that detrimental reliance on a public authority’s promise generally entitles affected individuals to a genuine reconsideration of the authority’s decision, rather than enforcement of the original promise. The case clarified the procedural, rather than substantive, nature of this remedy and distinguished it from cases where a substantive legitimate expectation may arise.

R (Bibi) v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 237 (CA)