## Facts

- Luton Borough Council and other local authorities challenged the Secretary of State for Education’s decision to cancel the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) program.
- The BSF program aimed to rebuild or refurbish secondary schools across England.
- Local authorities had invested considerable resources developing bids and project plans based on the government’s commitment to fund these works.
- The abrupt cancellation of the BSF program caused financial and logistical disadvantages for these authorities.
- The claimants contended that the government had created a legitimate expectation of funding which was not honored.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and unambiguous government promises regarding funding for school building projects created a legitimate expectation enforceable in law.
2. Whether the government’s failure to consult with local authorities before canceling the BSF program violated the requirement of procedural fairness.
3. Whether the Secretary of State was justified in departing from those legitimate expectations on grounds of overriding public interest, such as economic circumstances and fiscal austerity.

## Decision

- The High Court held that the government’s representations about BSF funding constituted sufficiently clear and unambiguous promises, generating a legitimate expectation for certain projects.
- The court found the Secretary of State had breached procedural fairness by not consulting the affected local authorities prior to cancelling the BSF program.
- Although the government cited fiscal reasons for withdrawing from its commitments, the court determined that these were inadequately justified and did not outweigh the prejudice suffered by the local authorities.
- The government’s discretion to allocate public funds was found not to be absolute where legitimate expectations had arisen and due process had not been followed.

## Legal Principles

- Legitimate expectation arises when a public authority’s representation or practice is clear, unambiguous, and induces reasonable reliance by an affected party.
- Procedural fairness requires public authorities to consult affected parties before withdrawing from established policies that give rise to legitimate expectations.
- The public interest can justify a departure from legitimate expectations, but must be supported by clear evidence and proper justification.
- Government promises, even absent formal contracts, can be legally enforceable where legitimate expectations result and procedural safeguards are not observed.

## Conclusion

The judgment in R (Luton BC) v Secretary of State for Education established that clear government promises regarding funding can create enforceable legitimate expectations, requiring procedural fairness and compelling justification before withdrawal. The case reinforced the need for transparency and accountability in public decision-making, particularly where affected parties have relied on government representations.

R (Luton Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Education [2011] EWHC 217 (Admin)