Overview
Ridge v. Baldwin ([1964] AC 40) revived in the United Kingdom by extending the principles of and fair hearing to executive and administrative decision-making bodies.
Case record
Country
United Kingdom
Court
House of Lords
Year
1964
Areas of Law
Administrative law, Constitutional law, Natural justice
Citation
Ridge v. Baldwin, House of Lords (1964)
Ridge v. Baldwin ([1964] AC 40) revived in the United Kingdom by extending the principles of and fair hearing to executive and administrative decision-making bodies.
Charles Ridge, Chief Constable of Brighton, was acquitted of conspiracy charges but criticized by the trial judge. The Brighton Watch Committee subsequently dismissed Ridge from his position without issuing formal charges or giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Ridge sued, arguing his dismissal violated principles.
Procedural fairness / Right to a fair hearing ()
Watch Committee dismissal resolutions, criminal trial court transcripts, statutory police service regulations, and written correspondence.
The Watch Committee argued that administrative bodies exercising executive discretion were not bound by judicial standards of . Ridge argued that any authority making decisions affecting rights or status must adhere to procedural fairness.
The House of Lords ruled in favor of Ridge, holding that his dismissal was void for violating the principles of .
Lord Reid dismantled the artificial distinction between 'judicial' and 'administrative' functions, holding that principles of —specifically audi alteram partem (the right to be heard)—apply to any body making decisions affecting an individual's rights, status, or livelihood.
Extended obligations to executive/administrative decisions and established modern procedural fairness in public law.
Extended obligations to executive/administrative decisions and established modern procedural fairness in public law.
Beyond borders
Comparative analysis has not yet been prepared for this case. Request one below.
Ask the editorial team to read this judgment against another legal system.
The circle
One thread for this judgment. Replies stay with the case, so the discussion reads as a single conversation rather than a feed.
Community guidelines
Judgment poll