Procedural fairness, the tribunal gave no reasons and I still said it was fine
Licence revoked after a hearing. Applicant was told the case against her and answered it. Decision arrived as two lines with no explanation of why.
I thought a hearing plus a chance to answer was the whole of fairness, so I said the process held up. Explanation disagrees and I would like to understand what I am not weighing.
7 replies
Fairness is not one fixed package. How much is owed slides depending on what is at stake and how the scheme is built, and on these facts a lot was at stake.
Best answer
Add the factors and you will stop guessing at this.
What kind of decision is it and how closely does the process resemble a court. What does the statute say and is there an appeal. How much does this matter to the person affected. Was she led to expect a particular procedure. And how much latitude did the body itself have in choosing how to run things.
Run those and a revoked licence lands high. Somebody losing their livelihood off a two line decision cannot tell whether she was heard or merely listened to, and that is where reasons come in.
so reasons are not automatic, they come out of running the factors
Right. Low stakes, routine decision, probably nothing owed. Somebody's licence, and the answer moves.
is this the same thing as the reasonableness analysis or a separate step?
Separate, and keeping them apart is worth a mark on its own. Fairness asks whether the process was acceptable. The standard question asks how closely a court should examine the result. You can have a perfectly fair hearing producing a decision that fails review, and a defensible decision reached unfairly.
I have been treating those as one topic for about a month
Sign in to take part in this discussion. If you have purchased an examination from us, you already have an account.