3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that shaped the court’s reasoning:

• Campbell-Rodriques v Attorney-General of Jamaica [2007] UKPC 65: This case addressed whether certain public regulations constituted a 'taking' of property. The Privy Council held that regulatory measures enacted in the public interest do not automatically amount to a deprivation of property rights.
• Tre Trakt rer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR 309: The European Court of Human Rights determined that revoking a liquor license constituted interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Grape Bay Ltd v Attorney General (1999) 57 WIR 62: Clarified that general regulatory restrictions do not constitute a deprivation of property requiring compensation unless they are disproportionate.
• R v North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213: Established the framework for assessing when a substantive legitimate expectation can be legally enforced, emphasizing fairness and public interest considerations.
• R (Bici) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 607: Highlighted the duty of public authorities to consider legitimate expectations in their decision-making processes.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Privy Council's analysis centered on two primary constitutional provisions:

• Section 4(a) - Right to Property: The appellants contended that the imposition of fees and transfer of management control effectively deprived them of property without due process.
• Section 4(d) - Equality Before the Law: The differential treatment between appellants and other maxi-taxi operators was alleged to constitute unequal treatment under the law.

The court examined whether the government's representations created a legitimate expectation of continued autonomy and fee-free operation for the Association. The key points included:

• The clarity and unambiguity of the government's assurances.
• The reliance of the Association on these representations in agreeing to relocate.
• The government's failure to provide a substantial public interest justification for altering the initial assurances.

The Privy Council concluded that the government's actions indeed frustrated the appellants' legitimate expectations without sufficient justification, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

3.3 Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for administrative law in Trinidad and Tobago and beyond. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding legitimate expectations against arbitrary governmental actions. Key impacts include:

• Strengthening Legal Accountability: Public authorities are reminded of their obligation to honor clear and unambiguous representations to individuals and groups.
• Clarifying Legitimate Expectations: The decision provides a clearer framework for assessing substantive legitimate expectations, emphasizing that not only procedural but also substantive expectations can be enforceable.
• Ensuring Fair Treatment: The ruling reinforces the principle of equality before the law, ensuring that differential treatment must be justified by material differences.
• Guiding Future Policy Formulation: Governments and public bodies must exercise caution when altering policies affecting stakeholders' legitimate expectations to avoid constitutional breaches.

Overall, the judgment serves as a cornerstone for upholding fairness and accountability in public administration.

4.1 Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectation refers to a situation where an individual or group has a reasonable belief that a public authority will act in a certain way, based on clear and unambiguous promises or past practices. If the authority fails to honor this expectation without a good reason, it may constitute an abuse of power.

4.2 Due Process of Law

Due process of law ensures that all legal rights owed to a person are respected. It includes fair procedures before the government can deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. In this case, the appellants argued that the imposition of fees without proper justification violated their property rights under due process.

4.3 Constitutional Rights Involved

- Section 4(a): Protects individuals' rights to life, liberty, security, and enjoyment of property, ensuring these rights are not deprived without due process.
- Section 4(d): Guarantees equality before the law and protection from unequal treatment by public authorities.