Ridge v Baldwin
[1964] AC 40
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
The rules of natural justice — particularly the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) — apply to every body of persons having authority to make decisions involving civil consequences for an individual. The doctrine is not confined to courts or to bodies acting in a 'judicial' or 'quasi-judicial' capacity. A dismissal made without giving the person concerned an opportunity to make representations is void. The case marks the revival of natural justice in administrative law after a long period of formalist retreat following Local Government Board v Arlidge [1915] AC 120.
Facts
Charles Ridge was Chief Constable of Brighton Police. In 1957 he was arrested with other officers and tried at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. He was acquitted, but the trial judge said his conduct was of a low standard. A second trial — at which the judge directed the jury to acquit — was equally damaging. The Watch Committee, acting under s.191(4) Municipal Corporations Act 1882, met on 7 March 1958 without notice to Ridge and dismissed him under their power to remove a chief constable 'whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty or otherwise unfit for the same'. Ridge was not invited to the meeting; the charges were not put to him; and he had no opportunity to defend himself. He sought a declaration that the dismissal was void and entitled him to his pension.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords (Lord Reid, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, with Lord Devlin dissenting on the application but not the principle) held the dismissal void. Lord Reid undertook a sustained re-examination of the older authorities and concluded that the line of cases since Arlidge (1915) which confined natural justice to bodies acting 'judicially' had been wrongly decided or wrongly applied. The principle of audi alteram partem was a general doctrine of common-law fairness applicable wherever decisions had serious consequences for the individual. The Watch Committee held an office of public trust regarding the chief constable; the relationship was governed by statute, not pure master-and-servant, so the dismissal required compliance with natural justice. The court issued a declaration that the dismissal was void; Ridge was treated as still being in office and entitled to pension benefits accordingly.
Key Quotes
"The principles of natural justice apply to every body of persons having authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences to individuals."
— Lord Reid
"I see no reason why we should be slow to apply the well-known principles of natural justice merely because a hundred years ago the principle had not been so clearly established as it is now."
— Lord Reid
"It is not, in my view, possible to dismiss summarily a man holding an office without first giving him an opportunity to say what he has to say in his own defence."
— Lord Hodson
Subsequent Treatment
Considered the modern starting-point for procedural fairness in English administrative law. Cited in virtually every judicial review based on a denial of a hearing.
Extended by Re HK (An Infant) [1967] 2 QB 617 (immigration), McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520 (refusing licences), Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (prerogative powers reviewable), R v Home Secretary ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 (right to reasons emerging from the duty of fairness).
Applied broadly in regulatory and disciplinary contexts including SRA / BSB tribunals, medical / nursing fitness-to-practise panels, and university disciplinary hearings.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Get Professional Help