Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 2 Ch 149

Facts

  • Mr. Schmidt, a German national, was subject to deportation from the United Kingdom under statutory powers exercised by the Home Secretary.
  • The Home Secretary ordered Mr. Schmidt's deportation without providing him a hearing or an opportunity to present his case.
  • Mr. Schmidt challenged the deportation order based on principles of natural justice, arguing that procedural fairness was required.
  • The initial court ruling upheld the Home Secretary's decision, holding that the prerogative power to control immigration did not require compliance with natural justice principles.
  • The Court of Appeal, with Lord Denning MR delivering the leading judgment, overturned the initial decision and recognized the necessity of applying fairness principles.

Issues

  1. Whether the statutory power to deport non-citizens requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
  2. Whether individuals subject to administrative decisions affecting their rights, specifically in immigration matters, are entitled to a fair hearing.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the principles of natural justice, particularly fairness, must apply even in the exercise of statutory powers over immigration.
  • It was determined that affected individuals have the right to be heard where their rights or interests are at stake.
  • The Court found that the duty to act fairly is context-dependent and that administrative bodies must provide appropriate procedural safeguards.
  • The initial ruling, which accepted the absence of procedural fairness in immigration decisions, was overturned.

Legal Principles

  • The duty of fairness in administrative law requires public bodies to offer affected parties an opportunity to be heard and mandates impartial decision-making.
  • The scope of the duty is flexible and depends on the nature of the administrative action, the rights affected, and the legitimate expectations of those involved.
  • The principle of fairness established in this case has been influential in the development of judicial review and subsequent administrative law cases.

Conclusion

The case established that administrative decision-makers are subject to a common law duty of fairness, requiring fair procedures even in immigration matters. This principle remains foundational in administrative law, shaping the requirements of procedural fairness and influencing later judicial review jurisprudence.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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