Procedural Impropriety

&
Rules of Natural Justice
M E VA N N A N AYA K K A R A
L L . M ( C A R D I F F ) , L L . B ( S TA F F O R D S H I R E )
AT TO R N E Y- AT- L AW & N O TA RY P U B L I C
 Aims and Objectives
Understand procedural impropriety as a ground for Judicial review

Define the term ‘Natural Justice’.

Discuss the various aspects of the ‘Rule Against Bias’,

Analyse the ‘Rule of Fair Hearing’.

 Procedural impropriety as a ground
of judicial review

In this case, Lord Diplock stated that Procedural impropriety includes:
‘failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with
procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision’
or
‘failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are
expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is
conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural
justice’.
 Introduction
This is the third ground for judicial review as cited by Lord diplcok in the GCHQ case.
Under this ground, the court examines the process by which a decision has been
reached.
Here the decision maker of a public authority should observe the correct procedure. If
the correct procedure is not followed, the decision can be declared as ‘ultra virus’
Procedural Impropriety could be examined under two categories
A. Non-compliance with mandatory rules or statutory provisions
B. Non-compliance with rules of Natural Justice
Elements of Procedural impropriety
Mandatory
Non Compliance Requirement
with statutory
Requirements Directory
Requirement
Procedural
Impropriety
Right to a fair
Non compliance hearing
with rules of
Natural Justice
Rule against bias
 A. Statutory Requirements
Failure to comply with procedures laid down by statute may
invalidate a decision.
For example, A statute specifies that X must consult A, B and C,
before taking a decision. Here if X failed to consult A, B, and C, his
decision can be quashed.
The courts distinguish between those procedural requirement
mandatory, and those which are directory.
 Mandatory & Directory
The consequence of a failure to observe procedural rule would depends on whether it
‘mandatory’ or ‘directory’.
If the procedure is held to be mandatory, then the breach of such procedure will result
in the decision being quashed.
If the rule is directory, then the decision may not necessarily or automatically held to be
Ultra Virus.
However, Acts of Parliament do not stipulate whether a rule is mandatory or directory.
The language used (“shall” or “may”) must be considered.
Prima facie words such as ‘shall’, ‘must’ may suggest that the procedure is mandatory,
whilst words such as ‘may’ can suggest that it is directory. However, this is not
conclusive.
 Examples for ‘mandatory requirement’
1. Statutory requirement to consult
Agricultural, horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd
[1972]
oThe Industrial Training Act 1964 provided for prior consultation by the Ministry of Labour with
interested organisations, a
oHowever, the Mushroom Growers’ Association had not actually been consulted.
oTherefore, it was held that the 1966 Order (establishing a training board imposing a levy) had no
application to them.
oConsultation was treated as a mandatory requirement in relation to the Mushroom Growers’
Association.
Cont….
2. Statutory requirements to notify the right to appeal against a
decision
If the act provides a right to appeal, the decision maker must inform the
party affected about such right.
Such right to appeal is seen in Rent act & Ceiling of Housing Property Act
In London and Clydeside Estates Ltd. v Aberdeen D.C. [1979] a planning
authority failed to notify landowners of their right of appeal to the
Secretary of State against a decision that adversely affected them; this
failure invalidated the decision.
3. Statutory requirement to conduct a formal inquiry
Ridge v Baldwin [1964]
The police committee dismissed their chief.
The Police Act 1919 required a formal inquiry into the charges brought before
the chief constable prior to dismissal.
House of Lords found that the dismissal must be regarded as void since it was
arrived at in complete disregard for the disciplinary regulations.
4. Statutory requirements on time limits
Wade and Forsyth states that even after the expiry of a statutory time,
an act can still be validly done.
However, time limits may be mandatory if they have particular
importance or ‘the rights of other persons depend on them’.
Cont….
5. Statutory requirements which affects a person’s right to property, office or
liberty.
In Kandiah vs. Abeykoon, giving prior notice before eviction was held to be
a mandatory requirement.

6. Statutory requirement to give notice of a change in regard to existing

scheme
 In Dr. Shiranthy Perera vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medicine et al, it was
stated that giving notice of a changed marking scheme to the petitioner was held
as a mandatory statutory requirement.
 Examples for ‘directory requirement’

Where the breach is trivial in nature.

Where the complaint has not suffered substantial prejudice.
Where substantial inconvenience or drastic consequences
would follow if the rule was held to be mandatory.
Rules of Natural
Justice
 Introduction
Natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality.
Natural Justice represents higher procedural principles developed by judges which every
administrative agency must follow in taking any decision adversely affecting the rights of a
private individual.
The two basic rules of natural justice are:
 Rule against bias (Nemo judex in causa sua) which means that no man should be judge in his
own case
 Right to a fair hearing (Audi alteram partem) which means that each party to the dispute
should be given a hearing; and
The breach of one or both of these rules provides the basis of an application for certiorari
(Quashing order).
 Rule Against Bias
Nemo judex in causa sua is a Latin phrase that means, literally, "no one should be a judge in his
own cause."
Nemo Judex In Causa Sua is popularly known as the rule against bias. That is the authority
sitting in judgment should be impartial and act without bias.
To instill confidence in the system, justice should not merely be done but seen to be done.
Barnet states that the rule against bias is strict. It is not necessary to show that actual bias
existed, the merest appearance or possibility of bias will suffice: A judge is disqualified from
determining any case in which he maybe' or may fairly be suspected to be biased.
The rationale behind this rule is that an impartial judgment cannot be expected from a
personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
The aim of the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system.
 Several Forms of Bias

Actual bias

Pecuniary Bias

Personal Bias

Ministerial Bias

Apparent bias/ Appearance of Bias

 Actual Bias
Actual bias is established where it is actually established that a decision-maker
was prejudiced in favour of or against a party.

For example, an immigration official deports X because the has taken a

personal dislike towards X due to his ethnicity.

Establishing actual bias will amount to automatic disqualification.

However, in practice, establishing actual bias is rare as it is very hard to prove.

 Pecuniary Bias

If the decision maker has a financial interest on a subject matter, his decision
will become null and void.

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal (1852)

 Here Lord Chancellor Cottenham affirmed several decrees made by Vice
Chancellor in favour of a canal company.
 However, it was discovered that Lord Cottenham owned several shares in the
said Canal company.
 This eventually led to the judge being disqualified from deciding the case.
 Personal Bias
In certain limited situations, bias can also be imputed when the decision-
maker's interest in the decision is not pecuniary but personal.
This can be established where the Decision Maker has not actually been biased,
but has shown a personal or professional interest.
It arises out of the personal or professional relationship of friendship or hostility
between the authority and the parties.
It’s the human nature that we try to give favourable decision to our friends or
relatives, whereas use the same as a weapon against the enemies.
 Ex parte Pinochet (No.2) case (1999)

Here the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was
entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore
avoid extradition to Spain.
In case no: 1, By a 3–2 majority, Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Steyn ruled that
Pinochet did not enjoy state immunity and should be extradited to spain.
However, in case no: 2 ,HOL set aside the first judgment on the grounds that an appearance of
bias had been created, following revelations that one of the judges, Lord Hoffmann, had failed to
disclose personal ties to Amnesty International, an intervenor in the case against Pinochet
Here Lord Hoffmann, was a director and chairperson of Amnesty International Charity Ltd.
(AICL), a company under the control of Amnesty Internation.
Even though it was non-pecuniary, the Law Lords took the view that the interest was sufficient
to warrant Lord Hoffmann's automatic disqualification from hearing the case
 Ministerial Bias
Question arise whether a minister a who initiated or involved in the project can hear
objections.
The English law is that if an objector seeks to question a Minister’s action for bias
because the minister has initiated the project under consideration, the courts will not
allow it, unless the objector shows that the minister has acted in bad faith or for an
improper purpose.
Franklin vs. Minister of Town and Country Planning.
 If the minister can listen to the objections of citizens, then no matter what his decision
is the decision will be valid even though minister can be bias.
 Because, parliament has given deciding power which is mandated by people.
 Otherwise it would be undue influence on government development policy.
Apparent bias/ Appearance of Bias

Apparent bias is present where a judge or other decision-maker is

not a party to a matter and does not have an interest in its outcome,
but through his or her conduct or behaviour gives rise to a suspicion
that he or she is not impartial
.
Currently, cases from various jurisdictions apply two different tests:
 Real likelihood of bias
 Reasonable suspicion of bias
 Real likelihood of bias

Here the courts try to find out whether the facts as assessed by the court gives rise to a
real likelihood of bias.
English case law
 Metropolitan Properties Company (FGC) Limited v. Lannon [1968]
 Regina v. Gough (1993) - Real danger of bias
 Porter v Magill (2001)
Sri Lankan case laws
 Simon v. The Commissioner of National Housing(1972)
 Mohamed Mohideen Hassen v. Peiris (1982)
 Metropolitan Properties Company (FGC)
Limited v. Lannon [1968]
Tenants asked the Rent Officer to fix the fair rents.
On appeal, the rents were then set at a rate lower even than they had requested.
The landlords now complained of bias stating that the Rent Officer had been assisting his own
father in negotiating a rent for such a local property.
It was held that he should not have sat. It was accepted that he had had no pecuniary interest
himself, and had acted scrupulously. It was a question of whether there was any appearance of bias.
Lord Denning considered the test for apparent bias, and said
"The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as
impartial as could be, nevertheless if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances,
there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his
decision cannot stand."
 R v. Gough (1993)
The House of Lords chose to state the test in terms of a "Real Danger of Bias",
and emphasized that the test was concerned with the possibility, not probability,
of bias.
Lord Goff also stated that "the court should look at the matter through the eyes
of a reasonable man, because the court in cases such as these personifies the
reasonable man."
However, this test has been disapproved of in some Commonwealth
jurisdictions. One criticism is that the emphasis on the court's view of the facts
gives insufficient emphasis to the perception of the public.
 Porter v Magill [2001]
Criticisms of Real danger of bias were addressed in this case
The Court adjusted the Gough test by stating it to be
"whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered
the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the
tribunal was biased"
 Simon v. The Commissioner of
National Housing(1972)
In this case an Assistant Commissioner was conducting an inquiry under the
Protection of Tenants (Special Provisions) Act, regarding alleged ejectment of
the tenant by the landlord.
The landlord made an allegation of bias on the part of the Assistant
Commissioner on the ground that he saw the tenant and her counsel discussing
with the Assistant Commissioner in his room on the day before the date of
inquiry.
The Supreme Court held that a mere suspicion of the bias is not sufficient and
there should be a real likelihood of being bias and refused to issue the writ of
certiorari.
Mohamed Mohideen Hassen v. Peiris
(1982)
The tenant of premises belonging to a Mosque had applied to the Rent Board seeking for relief
inter alia determination of the authorised rent.
The Chairman of the Rent Board was in occupation of the another adjoining premises belonging
to the same Mosque.
The Rent Board had disposed of the matter hastily and determined that the rent should be Rs:
12.50 per month.
The petitioners alleged that the Chairman of the Rent Board had a personal interest in the matter
under dispute as he was the occupant of the adjoining premises belonging to the same landlords
and the quick disposal of the case clearly shows that the decision of the Board was hasty, biased
and pre-determined.
The Court of Appeal held that there is a real likelihood of bias on the part of the Chairman of
the Rent Board.
 Reasonable suspicion of bias

The reasonable suspicion test asks whether a reasonable

and fair-minded person sitting in court and knowing all the
relevant facts would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair
trial for the litigant is not possible
 R. v. Sussex Justices ex. p. McCarthy
(1924)
The test of reasonable suspicion was considered
 In 1923 McCarthy, a motorcyclist, was involved in a road accident which
resulted in his prosecution before a magistrates' court for dangerous driving.
Here there was a clerk to the justices and he retired with them, who returned to
convict the defendant.
However, it was later found out that the clerk to the justices was a member of
the firm of solicitors acting in a civil claim against the defendant arising out of
the accident
Cont…
On learning of the clerk's background, the defendant applied to have the
conviction quashed.
The justices swore affidavits stating that they had reached their decision to
convict the defendant without consulting their clerk.
The fact that the clerk's firm was acting against the interests of the convicted
motorist in other proceedings was held to invalidate the conviction, even though
it was proved that the justices had not in fact consulted the clerk and that he had
refrained from saying anything prejudicial.
Lord Hewart CJ said: Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that
there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.
 ex parte Pennington (1975)
A complaint regarding selling under weight vegetable to a local
authority school was heard before a magistrate
However, the magistrate was a member of the authority's education
committee.
The conviction was quashed applying reasonable suspicion test.
 Real likelihood of bias &
Reasonable suspicion of bias

Real likelihood of bias

 Which perspective? The court, which is personification of the reasonable man.

 The question, addressed by the court is whether there was a real danger, in the sense of probability, of
actual bias.

Reasonable suspicion of bias

 Which perspective? The reasonable and fair- minded layman sitting in court and knowing all the
relevant facts.
 The question, addressed by the court is whether justice was both done and manifestly seen to be done.
Right to a fair
hearing
 Right to a fair hearing

Audi alteram partem means ‘ hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned unheard’ or
‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’.
If a statutory authority proposes to interfere with a person’s property rights or his liberty, it must
give him a hearing. Failure to do so is a breach of natural justice & renders the decision
procedural ultra vires.
Even if the statute is silent, the statutory authority must give a hearing. It is implied.
Constitutionally, adherence to this principle is required to maintain the due process and the rule of
law.
Thus the right to be heard in judicial proceedings is considered as a fundamental right under the
Constitution of Sri Lanka and any violation of this right can be corrected by invoking the
fundamental rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka“ [Article 12 (3)].
 Few Cases and key points
The first reported case on the breach of this rule goes back to 1723, which is referred as Dr.
Bentley’ case report as R V University of Cambridge where a university scholar was deprived
of his position on accidently having insulted the vice chancellor. The case was nullified by the
Court on the ground that Dr. Bentley was not heard. The judge Fortescue said ‘…” Even God
himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make a defence”.
In Cooper vs. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) held that the demolition of the Cooper's
house by the Board of Works without giving him a hearing was a violation of the rules of natural
justice which rendered the act of demolition ultra vires, although there was no staturoty
requirement of prior hearing.
Above case indicates that audi alteram partem rule is so fundamental that irrespective of
whether the rule has been mentioned or not in the statute, the rule must be followed
compulsorily. The rule has become so important that any failure to listen to the other side renders
the decision as ultra vires.
 Reversal of audi alteram partem
There was a time when the rules of Natural Justice were applicable only in judicial or quasi-
judicial acts. In such circumstances these rules were NOT applicable in executive and
administrative actions. This meant that the application of rules entirely depended on
Classification of functions.
In Nakkuda Ali vs. Jayaratne, the Controller cancelled the license of the textile dealer. Here
the writ application was dismissed because the controller was exercising administrative
functions, not judicial functions and the cancellation was only a withdrawal of a privilege.
Similarly, in R V Metropolitan Police commissioner ex p. Parker, a cab driver’s license was
revoked for an alleged offence. The request by the cab driver to call for defence was disallowed.
The court decided that Commissioners’ decision is an administrative decision and not a judicial
one and he was not obliged to give a hearing before revoking the license.
According to this doctrine, this looks at the type of person rather that the effect of the decision.
This thinking influenced many commonwealth jurisdictions including Sri Lanka.
 Revival of audi alteram partem
Above two cases were subjected to criticism by academic writers. H.W.R. Wade stated that “this was a
setback that haunted administrative law and no body will able to get Writ of Certiorari if administrative
officer did not give a hearing to a person”
This unsatisfactory situation was corrected with the decision Ridge V Baldwin.
Here HOL rejected the doctrine of classification of functions and said that Rules of Natural Justice apply
to executive and administrative decisions as well.
Court stated that AAP must observed always,
 Before someone is dismissed from office
 Before someone is deprived of membership of a professional or social body
 Before someone is deprived his property rights

Therefore, after this case, rather than looking at the type of person who was exercising the power of
making decision, courts began to look at the effect of the decision on the rights of parties.
Thus administrative, judicial and executive decision makers all have to comply with rules of Natural
Justice, otherwise the decision maker would be amenable to judicial review
Cont…
In Schimidty vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Lord Denning
extended the revival of Ridge vs. Baldwin, by stating that there is not
distinction between Judicial and Administrative decisions & NJ apply
whenever an individual has some rights, interest, legitimate
expectation.
Therefore, it could be seen the classification of function to decide
the amenability of decision with judicial review had now been put to
misuse.
 Sub Rights of Right to be Heard

Right to have notice of the charges

Right to know the opposing case
Right to present the case
Right to oral hearing
Right to cross examine witnesses
Right to legal representation
Right to know the reasons for the decision
1. Right to have notice of the charges

The right to have notice of the charges is considered an essential part of

audi alteram partem
Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to
show cause against the proposed action and seek his explanation
Without knowing the charges made against a person, no one can defend
himself.
Therefore, notice must give an adequate time to prepare for a defence.
University of Ceylon v. Fernando
(1960)
Final year student was charged with having prior knowledge on a particular question
paper and copying at the examination.
the Vice Chancellor had informed the plaintiff in writing that an allegation had been
made against him to the effect that he had acquired prior knowledge on the question
paper
After the inquiry the Vice Chancellor informed the plaintiff that the Board had found
him guilty
the plaintiff filed an action against the University for violation of rules of natural justice
i.e. he was not aware of the case he had to meet.
The Privy Council held that the plaintiff had been adequately informed of the charges
made against him by the University authorities.
 Board of trustee of Maradana Mosque
V Minister of Education (1966)

Appellants had been given an opportunity to state their

case on a one statutory violation complaint.
However, there was another second complaint and the
appellants were not informed about the second complaint.
Court held that certiorari was available.
 2. Right to know the opposing case

Kanda v. Government of Malaya (1962)

A police officer had been dismissed after a hearing before an adjudicating officer.
The Privy Council declared the dismissal void because
 the adjudicating officer was in possession of a report of a board of inquiry which made
charges of misconduct
 but which was not available to the police officer
This suggests that natural justice requires the disclosure of reports and evidence in the
possession of the deciding authority.
Cont…
In this case, Lord Denning stated that Right to be heard must be
carried with
Right in the accused man to know the case against him
He must know what evidence has been given and what statement
have been made affecting him
Given fair opportunity to correct or contradict them
 3. Right to present the case

In order to enable a person to present his case in his

defence, he should be informed of the charges made against
him
Adequate time should be given to prepare for appellant
defence; so he has a sufficient opportunity to present his
case.
 Nanayakkara v. University of
Peradeniya (1985)
A final year student was alleged that he was involved in the disturbances that took place in 1982
resulting in damages being caused to the University property.
When he was going for a class he had been informed by an Assistant Registrar of the University
to meet one Ranasinghe in the Senate building. When he went there he had been questioned
about disturbances that took place in the University and was given time till 2.p.m on the same
day to appear before the committee.
The Court of Appeal held that the sudden and unexpected summon to appear before the
committee of inquiry when the petitioner was returning from a lecture hall in the morning and
intimation to appear before it at 2 p.m. on the same day, did not give him adequate time to
prepare for his defence and therefore rules of natural justice had been violated in his case.
 4. Right to oral hearing

In R v Race Relations Board ex parte Selvaranjan (1975), it was stated that if the
facts are not disputed, an oral hearing is not mandatory because the matter would
depend on a pure question of law
In Lloyd v McMahon, House of Lords held that It may suffice to give an
opportunity to make representation in writing which was both suitable and fair in
all circumstances
In Herath V Nugawela (1968), Supreme Court held that oral hearing is not an
essential requirement, unless if the enabling statue had made it so
Exception- In Thabrew V Yatawara, it was held if the act makes it clear on the
availability of oral hearing and the appellant insists on hearing, then the oral
hearing should be granted.
 5. Right to cross-examine
UK Cases:
Rex vs. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison
If witnesses are giving hearsay evidence, then Cross Examination is needed.
But, board can refuse Cross examination, if it would cause disruption.
But need to give reason as for the refusal of cross examination
Bushell vs. Secretary of State for Environment
Cross Examination can be allowed because it is well known in Common Law
But, refusal to cross examine against a person who has made facts or expressed
opinions is not unfair per se.
 Sri Lanka cases
In University of Ceylon v. Fernando it was held that the audi alteram partem rule does not generally
require that the witnesses who had given evidence against the plaintiff, should be tendered to him for cross-
examination unless he requests
An Exception was seen Nanayakkara v. University of Peradeniya
 The court held that a situation, where several witnesses testified before a committee of inquiry against
the petitioner, can be considered as a glaring instance in which the testimony of the witnesses ought to
have been scrutinised and tested by cross-examination.
 The reason of such allowance is ex parte statements made by such biased and prejudiced witnesses
would have undoubtedly caused great prejudice to the petitioner,
 The court further held that this was an instance in which the committee should have volunteered the
suggestion that the plaintiff might wish to question the witnesses or in other words tendered the
witnesses unasked for cross- examination by the petitioner and that the failure to do so has caused
irreparable prejudice to the petitioner.
 6. Right to legal representation

UK- In ex parte Hone case (1988) the House of Lords held that legal
representation is not available in administrative proceedings as of a
right and the tribunal has a discretion to decide on this matter.
In the local context Chulasubdra de Silva v. University of Colombo
held that there is no right to legal or other representation but this may
be allowed at the discretion of the tribunal.
However, as per Section 41 and 42 of Judicature Act, Right to Legal
Representation has been guaranteed to citizens.
 7. Right to know the reasons for the decision
According to Lord Denning MR, the giving of reasons is ‘one of the fundamentals of
good administration’
In past, failure to give reasons is not considered as a breach of natural justice.
However, the need to give reason has arisen lately
 Citizens need to know the reasons behind the decision in order to determine whether
it is reviewable or not
 Authority can justify its decision where in the Judicial Review. Otherwise,
reasonable suspicion would arise as regard the justifiability of the decision
 UK Position
Rex vs. Secretary for State for Home Department, ex parte Doody
the applicants, who were serving mandatory life sentences, sought information as to the basis on
which the decision concerning the period for their mandatory detention had been reached.
The House of Lords laid down two justifications for the requirement that information be given.
First, if reasons were not given to the applicants, the possibility of their successfully applying for
judicial review would be frustrated. Secondly, a failure to give reasons adversely affected the
concept of fairness.
Lord Mustill, while acknowledging that there remained no general duty to give reasons, stated
that a duty would be implied under certain circumstances.
Thus, here the Home Secretary was, accordingly, under a duty to provide reasons both on the
basis that the giving of reasons was a prerequisite to an application for judicial review, and on the
basis of requirements of fairness.
 Sri Lanka Position
In Wijerama v Paul, T.S. Fernando J. held that that there are two instances where right to know
reasons is important,
 Where such duty expressly imposed by an Act of Parliament
 Where a statutory right of appeal is provided
In W.K.C. Perera vs. Professor Edirisinghe, it was stated that as enforcement of Ar.12(1), giving
reason is important.
In Lal Wimalasena v Asoka Silva, it was stated reasons for a decision must be disclosed to the
court.
In Fernando v People’s Bank, it was illustrated that refusal to give reasons must be for good and
justifiable reasons that should be furnished to the employee. Denial of it would amount to denial
legitimate expectation of employee and violate Ar. 12(1)
 Unique Gemstones Ltd. v.
Karunadasa (1995)
Here the employer brought a writ application before the Court of Appeal to
quash the Commissioner’s decision based on the failure of the commissioner to
submit any reasons for his decision.
 Here Senanayaka, J. (CA) observed that the failure to give reasons is a breach
of Section 17 of TEWA because it is inconsistent with the principles of natural
justice.
On appeal to the Supreme Court Justice Mark Fernando affirmed the decision of
the Court of Appeal stating that natural justice does not mean merely hearing and
recording the evidence and submissions; it necessarily means that the parties are
entitled to a reasoned consideration of the case which they present.
 Kusumawathie v. Aitken Spence & Co.
Ltd. (1996)
In contrast, to the previous decision Kusumawathie v. Aitken Spence
& Co. Ltd. (1996) took a narrow view point that in the absence of a
statutory requirement, there is no requirement of common law or
the principles of natural justice, that a tribunal or an administrative
authority should give reasons for its decision.
Similar approach was also taken in the case of Yaseen Omar (1999)
case.
 Lanka Multi Moulds v Wimalasena
Having gone through diverse views taken in previous judicial decisions, in
Lanka Multi Moulds v Wimalasena Justice Fernando stated that the statutory
conferment of a right of appeal against the decision of a tribunal has the effect of
imposing a duty on that tribunal to give reasons for its decisions.
Justice Fernando further stated that if the citizen is not made aware of the
reason for a decision he cannot tell whether it is reviewable, and he will thereby
be deprived of one of the protections of the common law which is guaranteed in
Article 12(1).
With this decision, there is a series of cases such as Ceylon printer Ltd V
Weerakoon taking the view that commissioner should reveal the reasons for his
decision as a general rule.
In view of the judicial developments in Sri Lanka, notwithstanding
the accepted view that there is no absolute duty to give reasons, the
giving of reasons will ensure that decisions are taken in accordance
with the rules of fairness and extraneous considerations such as
improper motives and arbitrariness would not play a role in decision
making.
 Advantages of Giving Reasons

Help court to exercise Judicial review.

Prevent administrative authorities from taking arbitrary
actions
Increase public confidence in administrative decision
making process.
 Questions
“Nemo judex in causa sua" is a principle of natural justice that no person can
judge a case in which they have an interest. Critically analyse how this principle
of natural justice in considered under Administrative law.

A fair hearing is an absolute necessity to fulfil the need to adhere to rules of

natural justice in relation to decision making process under the Administrative
Law. What are the essentials that you would consider are of paramount
importance in effecting a fair hearing? Discuss with relevant decided cases.
Next Lesson
Legitimate Expectation
Discretionary bars
Locus Standi