An auditor made a determination that councillors should
reimburse Liverpool Council for a loss of over £100,000 caused by their
misconduct (delay in setting a rate). The councillors claimed the
auditor’s failure to offer them an oral hearing made his determination a
nullity. The House of Lords held that an oral hearing was
unnecessary. Though the courts will readily imply into a statute
additional procedural safeguards to secure fairness, what fairness requires
depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it
has to make and the statutory or other framework (Lord Bridge). Given
that the councillors had not requested an oral hearing and had made full
written representations to the auditor, which would not be supplemented in any
material respects by an oral hearing, the auditor had not acted unlawfully in
not affording an oral hearing.
see further:
No comments:
Post a Comment