## Facts

- Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd and other fishing companies held licenses under a quota scheme administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
- MAFF, through formal and informal communications, created an expectation of license renewal for these companies.
- Facing pressure to reduce fishing capacity, MAFF changed its policy and substantially restricted license renewals.
- Hamble Fisheries and others were directly affected by this new policy, prompting a legal challenge against MAFF’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether MAFF’s previous conduct established a legitimate expectation for license renewal among affected fisheries.
2. Whether the subsequent MAFF policy shift regarding license renewals, absent adequate consultation, breached this legitimate expectation.
3. Whether procedural fairness required MAFF to consult license holders and provide notice and reasons before changing policy.
4. Whether overriding public interest in conserving fish stocks justified MAFF’s actions.

## Decision

- The Court acknowledged MAFF’s prior conduct had created a legitimate expectation among license holders.
- The Court distinguished between substantive and procedural legitimate expectations, treating the expectation here as procedural.
- The Court determined that while public authorities may alter policies for public interest reasons, they are obliged to act fairly in the process.
- The Court found the MAFF acted unfairly by implementing abrupt policy changes without adequate consultation or consideration of reliance interests.
- The Court emphasized the duty to provide affected parties with notice, opportunity to be heard, and reasons for decisions in circumstances affecting legitimate expectations.

## Legal Principles

- Legitimate expectation arises from a public authority's consistent conduct or assurances, obligating fair treatment of affected parties.
- There is a critical distinction between substantive legitimate expectation (right to a benefit) and procedural legitimate expectation (right to fair process).
- Even when substantive expectations are not upheld, procedural fairness—consultation, notice, and reasons—remains essential.
- Public authorities can override legitimate expectations if justified by compelling public interest but must still follow principles of natural justice.

## Conclusion

The decision in R v MAFF, ex parte Hamble confirmed that legitimate expectation, especially of procedural fairness, constrains administrative discretion. While the public interest may justify policy shifts, authorities must provide affected parties with fair process, including proper consultation and explanation of decisions, to avoid acting arbitrarily.


R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hamble (Offshore) Fisheries Ltd [1995] 2 All ER 714