Audi Alteram Partem

In R (Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 41, the Supreme Court considered the audi alteram partem principle in the administrative law context, citing Lord Neuberger's formulation in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2): "the rule is that, before a statutory power is exercised, any person who foreseeably would be significantly detrimentally affected by the exercise should be given the opportunity to make representations in advance, unless (i) the statutory provisions concerned expressly or impliedly provide otherwise or (ii) the circumstances in which the power is to be exercised would render it impossible, impractical or pointless to afford such an opportunity." Lord Neuberger added that any argument that a hearing would be impossible, impractical or pointless "should be very closely examined, as a court will be slow to hold that there is no obligation to give the opportunity".

The Supreme Court in Pathan also noted that "audi alteram partem is usually relied upon as a means of challenging the decision made after the alleged departure from fair procedure" — i.e. it is typically invoked to attack the validity of a decision reached without a fair hearing, rather than as a freestanding procedural entitlement disconnected from the outcome. The principle sits alongside the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua) as one of the two classic pillars of natural justice, and underpins the modern common-law duty of procedural fairness applied to administrative decision-makers, tribunals and disciplinary bodies.