Lloyd v McMahon
The requirements of fairness depend on the character of the decision making body, the kind of decision and the statutory framework.
Facts
Liverpool City Council's Labour councillors, led by Derek Hatton, delayed setting a rate in 1985 as part of a campaign against central government restrictions on local authority spending. The district auditor, under the Local Government Finance Act 1982, wrote to the councillors inviting written representations, and then certified that the council had suffered a loss of over £100,000 because of their wilful misconduct, making them personally liable for it. The councillors argued that the procedure was unfair because they had not been offered an oral hearing.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the procedure was fair. Lord Bridge said that the so called rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone, and that what the requirements of fairness demand when any body has to make a decision affecting the rights of individuals depends on the character of the decision making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. The councillors had been given full notice of the case against them and the opportunity to make written representations, which they had done. They had not asked for an oral hearing, and fairness did not require one in the circumstances.
Related cases on judicial review: procedural impropriety and legitimate expectations
- Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB NS 180
- Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
- Re Finucane's Application for Judicial Review [2019] UKSC 7
- McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520
- Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357
- R (Bibi) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607, [2002] 1 WLR 237
- R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56, [2014] 1 WLR 3947
- R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC 1115
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
