Public Law Studies Quarterly

Legitimate Expectation in Administrative Law

Document Type : Article

Authors

Vali Rostami 1
Seyed Mohammadmahdi Ghamami 2
Hamidreza Salimi 3

1 Associated Prof. Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistance Prof. Faculty of Law and Religious Study, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran

3 MSe. Faculty of Law and Religious Study, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.284964.2073
Abstract
In some European countries, including the UK, the theory of legitimate expectation has emerged as one of the means by which judicial supervision is exercised over the discretionary powers of government authorities.This theory was initially considered in the Schmidt case, but it was later criticized and many English jurists and judges expressed serious doubts about it. The main question of this paper is: what is the nature of and challenges posed by the legitimate expectation theory in English administrative law? Although the foundations of legitimate expectation theory are based on the concept of fairness, there is no consensus on the nature and function of legitimate expectations. Doubts about the acceptance of substantive legitimate expectation in England, its non-acceptance in New Zealand and Australia, the concept of abuse of power in certain judicial opinions, and rival concepts such as the principle of proportionality, have exposed legitimate expectation theory to serious challenges. These challenges have prevented this theory from acquiring the characteristics of a legal principle.

Keywords

Legitimate expectation
Coughlan
Hamble Fisherie
abuse of power
separation of powers
  1. A) Books
  2. Behnia, Masih (2014), The principle of legitimate expectation, the concept of principles and methods of protection in administrative law, Khorsandi Publications (In Persian).
  3. Endicott, Timothy (2011), Administrative Law, Oxford University press, United State, second Edition.
  4. Fanazad, Reza (2012), Elective Jurisdiction and Rule of Law, PhD Thesis, Shahid Beheshti University (In Persian).
  5. Jestaz, Philippe, Les principes généraux du droit, Droit français, Droits de pays arabes, droit musulman, Bruylant Bruxelles.
  6. Meakin, Robert (2008), “The law of Chairtable Status: Maintenance and removable”, Cambridge University Press.
  7. Petafat, Arian and Markazmalmiri, Ahmad (2016), The concept and scope of the general principles of administrative law, the possibility and how to refer to it in judicial proceedings, the Press and Publications Center of the Judiciary (In Persian).
  8. Schonberg, Soren (2008), Legitimate expectation, translated by Ahmad Ranjbar, Mizan Publications (In Persian).
  9. Shirvi, Abdolhossein (2013), Comparative Law, Samat, Tehran (In Persian).
  10. Thomas, Robert (2000), “legitimate expectations and proportionality in administrative law” oxford-Portland, Oregon.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. A Joseph, Philip, (2017), “law of legitimate expectation in New Zealand, Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World”, Hart Publication, pp. 189-216.
  3. Ahmed, Farrah and Perry, Adam, (2014), “The coherence of the doctrine of legitimate expectations”, Cambridge law journal, pp. 61-85.
  4. Anghel Elena, (2016), “General Principles of law”, Lex ET Scientia International Journal, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 120-130.
  5. Blundell, David, (2005), “Ultra Vires Legitimate Expectations”, judicial review law journal, pp. 147-155.
  6. Boughey, Janina, (2017), “proportionality and legitimate expectations, Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World”, Hart Publication, pp. 121-146.
  7. Craig, P.P., (1996), “Substantive legitimate expectations in domestic and community law”, Cambridge law journal, pp. 289-312.
  8. Craig, Paul and Schønberg, Søren, (2000), ‘Substantive Legitimate Expectations after Coughlan’ Public Law .
  9. Domenico Orsi, Silvano (2010), “Legitimate expectations: An Overview” judicial review journal, pp. 388-394.
  10. Elliot, Mark (2000),” Coughlan: Substantive Protection of Legitimate Expectations Revisited”, Judicial review, pp. 27-32.
  11. -------------- (2017), “From Heresy to Orthodoxy: substantive Legitimate Expectations in the United Kingdom”, Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World, Hart Publication, pp. 217-244.
  12. Gardner. Johan (2007), “Some Types of law, common law Theory”, Cambridge Law Published.
  13. Ghamami, Seyed Mohammad Mehdi (2017), Legitimate expectation, Encyclopedia of Public Law, Imam Sadegh (AS) University, pp. 143-147 (In Persian).
  14. Groves, Matthew (2008), “Substantive Legitimate Expectations in Australian Administrative Law”, Melbourne University Law Review, pp. 470-523.
  15. GROVES, MATTHEW AND WEEKS, GREG (2017), “The legitimate expectation as an Instrument and Illustration of common law change” Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World, Hart Publication, pp. 1-16.
  16. Groves, Matthew (2017), “Legitimate Expectation in Australia: Overtaken by formalism and pragmatism” Legitimate Expectations in the Common Law World, Hart Publication, pp. 319-344.
  17. Hayati, Ali Abbas (2015), The Concept of "Legal Principle" and its Comparison with the "Legal Rule" (Comparative Study in Law. Iran and France), Bi-Quarterly Journal of Civil Law Knowledge, Year 7, Issue 2, Fall and Winter , Pp. 15-26 (In Persian).
  18. Laing QC, Elisabeth (2013), “Legitimate expectation”, Judicial review Journal.
  19. Moffett, Jonathan, (2008), “Resiling from legitimate expectations”, Judicial review journal, pp.219-231.
  20. Roberts, Melanie (2001), “Public Law Representations and Substantive Legitimate Expectations”, The Modern Law Review, Vol.64, No. 1, pp. 112-122.
  21. Sales, Philip (2006), “legitimate expectations”, Judicial review journal, pp.186-193.
  22. Steyn, Karen (2001), “Substantive Legitimate Expectation”, Judicial review journal, pp. 244-249.
  23. Vanderman, Yaaser (2016),” substantive Legitimate Expectations”, Judicial review.
  24. Young, Alison L, (2012),” The Rule of law in the United Kingdom: Formal or Substantive?” ICL Journal, Vol.6 pp.259-280.
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 1
Spring 2022
Spring 2022
Pages 231-248

  • Receive Date 08 July 2019
  • Revise Date 17 September 2019
  • Accept Date 20 October 2019

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us