An analysis of the distinction between legitimate expectations, promissory estoppel, and more expectations
Analysis of the Distinction Between Legitimate Expectations, Promissory Estoppel, and More Expectations
1. Introduction
In administrative and contract law, the concepts of Legitimate Expectations and Promissory Estoppel protect individuals from arbitrary changes in public or private conduct. While both relate to reliance on promises or representations, their scope, nature, and legal consequences differ significantly.
The term "More Expectations" is not a standard legal doctrine but often refers informally to expectations beyond legitimate or promissory estoppel claims, sometimes involving moral or social expectations. For clarity, this explanation will focus primarily on Legitimate Expectations and Promissory Estoppel, highlighting their differences.
2. Legitimate Expectations
Definition: A public law doctrine that protects individuals when a public authority makes a representation or follows a consistent practice that leads a person to expect a certain benefit or procedural right.
Nature: Arises from the conduct of public authorities (promise, practice, policy).
Purpose: To ensure fairness in public administration and prevent abuse of power.
Scope: Generally applies in public law contexts; the expectation can be procedural (right to a hearing) or substantive (continuation of a benefit).
Enforcement: Courts may compel the authority to fulfill the expectation or provide compensation if frustrated unfairly.
3. Promissory Estoppel
Definition: An equitable doctrine preventing a party from going back on a clear, unambiguous promise upon which the other party has relied to their detriment.
Nature: Arises mainly in contract or private law contexts.
Purpose: To uphold fairness and justice in contractual and quasi-contractual dealings.
Scope: Protects against injustice from reneging on promises, even without a formal contract.
Enforcement: The promisor is estopped (prevented) from denying the promise.
4. More Expectations
This term lacks formal recognition but can be understood as:
Expectations based on moral grounds or social norms.
Expectations that are not legally enforceable.
Hope or anticipation without sufficient legal foundation.
5. Key Distinctions
| Aspect | Legitimate Expectations | Promissory Estoppel | More Expectations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Domain | Public law | Contract/private law | Informal, moral or social |
| Source | Public authority’s representation or practice | Clear promise by one party to another | Moral or social norms |
| Nature of Expectation | Procedural or substantive rights | Promise preventing denial of rights | Non-legal hopes or anticipations |
| Enforcement | Judicial review, mandamus, or compensation | Equitable estoppel preventing denial of promise | No legal enforcement |
| Purpose | Fairness in administrative action | Preventing injustice in contracts | Moral persuasion or social fairness |
| Example | Government promise of a benefit or hearing | Landlord promising not to increase rent | Expecting a job promotion without assurance |
6. Case Laws Illustrating the Doctrines
Case 1: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 (UK - GCHQ Case)
Facts: Government changed policy on trade union membership without consultation.
Held: Court recognized the doctrine of legitimate expectation, holding that public authorities must respect procedural legitimate expectations.
Significance: Landmark case establishing legitimate expectations as a ground of judicial review.
Case 2: R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2001) QB 213
Facts: A disabled woman was promised a “home for life” by a public health authority which was later withdrawn.
Held: The court held that a substantive legitimate expectation existed, and the withdrawal was unlawful.
Significance: Expanded legitimate expectation to include substantive rights, not just procedural fairness.
Case 3: Humble v. Hunter (1963) 2 QB 84
Facts: Promissory estoppel applied where a landlord promised not to increase rent and later tried to do so.
Held: The court prevented the landlord from increasing rent based on the promise.
Significance: Classic example of promissory estoppel protecting a promisee from detriment.
Case 4: D.C. Builders Ltd v. Rees (1966) 2 QB 617
Facts: Promissory estoppel prevented a creditor from suing for full payment after accepting a lesser sum under duress.
Held: Estoppel prevented the creditor from going back on their promise to accept less.
Significance: Demonstrates equitable protection in contractual dealings.
Case 5: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (2007) 2 SCC 377 (India)
Facts: The Supreme Court recognized promissory estoppel in Indian contract law, where the defendant relied on a promise by Bharat Petroleum.
Held: Promissory estoppel was applied to prevent Bharat Petroleum from reneging.
Significance: Indian recognition of promissory estoppel as part of contract law.
7. Summary
| Doctrine | Key Feature | Legal Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Legitimate Expectation | Protection against arbitrary public action | Enforces fairness in public administration |
| Promissory Estoppel | Prevents denial of promise in private dealings | Prevents injustice by enforcing promises |
| More Expectations | Informal, non-binding hopes or anticipations | No legal enforceability |
8. Conclusion
Legitimate expectations ensure fairness in administrative law, primarily protecting procedural and substantive rights of citizens against public authorities.
Promissory estoppel functions within contract law to prevent parties from reneging on clear promises causing detriment.
Both doctrines are distinct yet overlap in their goal to uphold fairness and justice.
More expectations, lacking legal foundation, do not afford protection under law but may influence social or moral considerations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments