Legitimate expectation in licensing matters: successful candidates under earlier rules could not be denied consideration after regulatory change.

Candidates who cleared the examination under the 1984 Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations retained an enforceable entitlement to have their pending applications considered, despite the 2004 Regulations superseding the earlier regime. The saving language in the new framework preserved steps already taken, and prolonged non-processing of the applications, followed by cancellation of the selection process, was treated as arbitrary and inconsistent with Wednesbury reasonableness. The Court also recognised a legitimate expectation that a successful candidate would receive consideration under the rules prevailing when the examination was passed, and held that the applicants could not be treated as fresh recruits merely because the licensing form had changed. The cancellation of the 2003 selection process was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether applicants who had successfully cleared the examination under the 1984 Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations retained an enforceable right to have their applications processed after the 2004 Regulations came into force, and whether cancellation of the earlier invitation for applications was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The 2004 Regulations superseded the 1984 Regulations, but the saving language in the new regime preserved actions already taken before supersession. The applicants had completed the steps required under the earlier regime and had been left unattended despite the authority's failure to act within a reasonable time. The Court treated the prolonged non-processing of applications and the cancellation of the pending selection process as arbitrary and inconsistent with Wednesbury reasonableness. It also held that a candidate who appears and succeeds under the then-prevailing rules acquires a legitimate expectation that the process will culminate in consideration of the benefit contemplated by those rules, and that the applicants could not fairly be treated as fresh recruits under the new regulations merely because the licensing form had changed.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to be considered on the basis of their earlier success, and the cancellation of the 2003 selection process was not justified. The authority was directed to consider them under the extant 2004 framework and complete the exercise within the time fixed by the Court.

---