R v N. & E. Devon Health, [2001] QB 213

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Ms. Elliot, a long-time resident of a publicly funded housing facility, was assured by the local authority that she could remain at the facility indefinitely. Relying on this guarantee, she sold her home in order to cover initial co-payment fees and moved into the facility. Two years later, the authority announced that the facility would close due to budget restrictions, proposing to relocate residents to a smaller, less accessible building. Ms. Elliot contends that the promise of indefinite accommodation constituted a substantive legitimate expectation. The authority argues that financial constraints override any reliance-based claim Ms. Elliot may have.


Which of the following is the single best statement regarding Ms. Elliot’s potential claim for a substantive legitimate expectation?

Introduction

Substantive legitimate expectation, a key principle in administrative law, arises when a public authority makes a clear and unambiguous promise to an individual, creating a legally enforceable expectation of a particular outcome. This principle limits the discretionary powers of public bodies, ensuring fairness and accountability in their dealings with citizens. The requirements for establishing a substantive legitimate expectation are stringent, demanding a clear promise, detrimental reliance, and an absence of overriding public interest considerations that justify frustrating the expectation. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 serves as the leading authority on this complex area of law, establishing the criteria and considerations necessary for judicial intervention.

The Facts of Coughlan

In 1991, Miss Coughlan, severely disabled following a road accident, was moved from a hospital to a purpose-built NHS facility, Mardon House, specifically designed for long-term care. She and other residents were given explicit assurances by the health authority that Mardon House would be their "home for life." However, in 1998, the health authority decided to close Mardon House due to financial constraints, proposing to move the residents to alternative accommodation. Miss Coughlan challenged this decision, arguing that the health authority had created a substantive legitimate expectation that she could remain at Mardon House.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal held that the health authority’s promise constituted a substantive legitimate expectation. The assurance of a "home for life" was clear and unambiguous, and Miss Coughlan had detrimentally relied on this promise in moving to Mardon House. The Court found that no overriding public interest, including financial considerations, justified breaking the promise. The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in assessing whether a public authority’s actions are justifiable in light of a legitimate expectation. While financial considerations could be relevant, they could not automatically outweigh the promise made to Miss Coughlan. The Court distinguished between cases where a promise relates to a substantive benefit, such as in Coughlan, and those concerning procedural matters, where a lower threshold applies.

Establishing a Substantive Legitimate Expectation

Coughlan established a three-pronged test for establishing a substantive legitimate expectation:

  1. Clear and Unequivocal Promise: The public authority must have made a clear and unambiguous representation, inducing a legitimate expectation of a specific outcome. Vague or generalized statements are insufficient.
  2. Detrimental Reliance: The individual must have relied on the promise to their detriment. This does not necessarily require financial loss but must show a change in position based on the representation.
  3. Absence of Overriding Public Interest: The public authority must demonstrate that no overriding public interest justifies frustrating the legitimate expectation. This requires a balancing exercise, weighing the individual's interest against the broader public good.

The Significance of Proportionality

Proportionality plays a critical role in assessing whether a public authority’s actions are justified in light of a legitimate expectation. The court in Coughlan emphasized that the decision to frustrate a legitimate expectation must be proportionate to the public interest it serves. The more substantial the interference with the individual's expectation, the more compelling the public interest justification must be.

Subsequent Case Law and Development

Coughlan remains the leading authority on substantive legitimate expectations, shaping subsequent case law. Cases such as R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 48 and R (Bibi) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607 have further refined the principles established in Coughlan, highlighting the complexities of balancing individual rights against public policy considerations. These cases reiterate the importance of a context-specific approach, emphasizing the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case when assessing the existence and enforceability of a legitimate expectation.

Conclusion

R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213 stands as a landmark judgment in administrative law, establishing the principles of substantive legitimate expectations. The case demonstrates the limitations on public authorities' discretionary powers, emphasizing the importance of fairness, accountability, and proportionality in their dealings with individuals. The three-pronged test articulated in Coughlan – a clear promise, detrimental reliance, and absence of overriding public interest – provides a framework for analyzing claims of substantive legitimate expectation. Subsequent case law has built upon this basis, further developing the principles while acknowledging the detailed and context-specific nature of this area of law. The judgment highlights the important role of judicial review in ensuring that public authorities act fairly and lawfully, respecting the legitimate expectations they create. The balancing exercise involved in assessing the proportionality of frustrating a legitimate expectation remains a complex and developing area of legal analysis.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal