McInnes v Onslow-Fane
What fairness requires depends on the type of decision: forfeiture, application or expectation cases.
Facts
Mr McInnes applied to the British Boxing Board of Control for a boxing manager's licence. He had previously held other licences from the Board, but these had been withdrawn some years earlier. The Board refused his application without giving him reasons or an oral hearing. Mr McInnes sought a declaration that the Board had acted unfairly.
Legal principle
Megarry V-C dismissed the claim. He distinguished three types of case. In forfeiture cases, where an existing right or position is taken away, the person is entitled to a fair hearing and to know the case against him. In application cases, where a person applies for a licence or position for the first time, the decision maker must act honestly and without bias, but there is no general duty to give reasons or a hearing. In expectation cases, where an existing licence holder applies for renewal, the position is closer to forfeiture cases. Mr McInnes's case was an application case, so the Board was not required to give him a hearing or reasons.
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
- Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625
- 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.
