## Facts

- Liverpool Corporation was responsible for taxi licensing in Liverpool.
- The Corporation had previously assured the Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association that it would consult them before increasing the number of taxi licenses.
- Contrary to this assurance, the Corporation increased the number of licenses without prior consultation.
- As a result, the Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association sought judicial review of the Corporation’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the Corporation’s failure to consult the Association before increasing taxi licenses was a breach of procedural fairness.
2. Whether a public authority's assurance of consultation creates a legitimate expectation that binds the authority unless there is a significant reason to depart from the promise.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the Corporation had acted unfairly by breaking its assurance to consult the Association before changing the licensing policy.
- The Court found that the promise created a legitimate expectation of consultation.
- The Corporation’s failure to fulfill this expectation rendered their decision unlawful.
- The Court emphasized the importance of public bodies keeping promises that others have relied on, except where overriding public interest justifies a departure.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural fairness requires public authorities to act fairly, including the right to be heard and the avoidance of bias.
- A legitimate expectation arises when a public authority’s assurance or consistent past practice leads others to expect a particular procedure, such as consultation.
- Breach of a legitimate expectation—especially where a promise has been made and relied upon—can render a public authority’s decision unlawful.
- Public bodies must act with consistency, transparency, and accountability.
- Judicial review is a mechanism to challenge unfair administrative decisions.

## Conclusion

R v Liverpool Corporation, ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association demonstrates that a public authority’s assurance of consultation gives rise to a legitimate procedural expectation; failure to honor such promises without sufficient justification constitutes a breach of procedural fairness, establishing an important precedent for administrative law.

R v Liverpool Corporation, ex p Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators' Association [1972] 2 QB 299