Cole v Cunningham

Cole and two others brought an appeal against a decision of the Public Service Board, which had rejected their applications for re-employment. The Board's decision was grounded on the assertion that the applicants did not have a legitimate expectation of being re-employed, and thus, the Board was not obligated to adhere to the principles of natural justice when making its decision. The applicants argued that they had a legitimate expectation of being re-employed, which entitled them to a fair hearing before the Board's decision was made. The applicants contended that the Board had not observed the rules of natural justice and that its decision was, therefore, unlawful.

The court had to determine whether the Public Service Board was bound by the rules of natural justice when making its decision and, if so, whether the Board had complied with those rules. The court also needed to assess the meaning of "legitimate expectation" in this context and whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation of being re-employed. The applicants' argument hinged on the assertion that the Board had failed to provide them with an opportunity to be heard before making its decision, which they argued constituted a breach of natural justice. The court was required to examine whether the Board's failure to provide a hearing amounted to a breach of natural justice and whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation of being re-employed.

The court held that the Public Service Board was not bound by the rules of natural justice when making its decision, and that the Board was entitled to consider the applicants' suitability for re-employment without providing them with an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the applicants did not have a legitimate expectation of being re-employed, as there was no promise or representation made to them that they would be re-employed. The court held that the Board's decision was not unlawful, and that the applicants had not established any grounds for judicial review. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.