## Facts

- In 1991, Miss Coughlan, who was severely disabled following a road accident, was moved from a hospital to Mardon House, a purpose-built NHS facility designed for long-term care.
- Residents, including Miss Coughlan, were given explicit assurances by the health authority that Mardon House would be their "home for life."
- In 1998, the health authority decided to close Mardon House for financial reasons, proposing to relocate residents to alternative accommodation.
- Miss Coughlan challenged the decision, arguing the health authority's promise created a substantive legitimate expectation of her remaining at Mardon House.

## Issues

1. Whether the health authority's explicit assurance amounted to a substantive legitimate expectation legally enforceable by Miss Coughlan.
2. Whether the authority could frustrate that expectation due to financial or public interest considerations.
3. What test and principles govern when promises by public authorities create enforceable substantive legitimate expectations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the assurance that Mardon House would be a "home for life" was clear, unambiguous, and constituted a substantive legitimate expectation.
- Miss Coughlan had relied detrimentally on the promise by relocating to Mardon House.
- The authority failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest, including financial considerations, to justify breaching the expectation.
- The court emphasized the importance of proportionality in assessing whether frustrating a legitimate expectation is justified.
- The Court distinguished between substantive and procedural legitimate expectations, applying a higher threshold to substantive claims like Miss Coughlan’s.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive legitimate expectation requires: (1) a clear and unequivocal promise; (2) detrimental reliance by the individual; and (3) absence of overriding public interest justifying frustration of the expectation.
- General or vague statements do not suffice; promises must be specific and induce reliance.
- Financial considerations alone do not automatically override legitimate expectations; proportionality must be assessed.
- The distinction between substantive and procedural legitimate expectations is significant, with more rigorous scrutiny for substantive benefits.

## Conclusion

R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 is a leading case defining when clear promises by public bodies create enforceable substantive legitimate expectations. The court established a three-part test, requiring a clear promise, detrimental reliance, and no overriding public interest. The case highlights the principle that public authorities must act fairly and with accountability, subject to judicial review where promises induce substantive expectations in individuals.