Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Zohreh Naeimifard ¹
• Mahdi Hadavand ²

¹ Ph.D Student, Public Law, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Public International Law Department, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

In administrative law, the rule against bias constitutes a key component of principles of procedural fairness and complements the theory of good governance. Various forms of bias (e.g., personal, cognitive, organizational–institutional, previous involvement, preconceived opinions, predispositions, or prejudgments) can significantly influence decision-making processes. Despite the importance of the rule, its foundations and dimensions have received relatively limited attention within administrative law, with most discussions focusing primarily on judicial impartiality. Given the role of comparative law in administrative law, the present study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach to explore the nature, elements, and application of the rule against bias in British administrative law. Currently, the British legal system’s approach to the rule against bias appears fragmented and inconsistently applied, with varying standards. Any violation of this rule may render the administrative authority incompetent, with consequences ranging from the decision being void to merely voidable. While concerns persist regarding the rule’s rigidity—particularly in technically complex or specialized administrative matters—there remains a pressing need to balance between competing concerns.

Literature Review

The general applicability of the rule against bias, as the second principle of procedural justice, is addressed in a chapter in the Persian-language book titled Comparative Administrative Law: Procedural Justice (Fallahzadeh, 2015). Aside from Fallahzadeh’s work, which serves as a key reference for the present study, the existing Persian-language literature lacks an independent and comprehensive analysis of this topic. It seems that the literature on the principles underlying the rule against bias and the related judicial procedures remains limited. Thus, the present study can be considered a novel contribution in its focus on the legal status of biased administrative decisions, as well as the criticisms and challenges associated with the application of the rule against bias.

Materials and Methods

This study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach, drawing on the data collected through a library research method and a review of library sources.

Results and Discussion

According to the findings, the rule against bias plays a central role in upholding procedural fairness and legitimacy within the U.K. administrative legal system. The British courts have gradually moved away from rigid, formalistic distinctions—such as that between judicial and administrative functions—toward a more flexible, context-sensitive approach. This shift reflects a growing recognition that all decision-makers, regardless of their institutional position, are bound by the fundamental obligation to act impartially. The analysis identified three doctrinal categories of bias—actual, presumptive, and apparent—each with its own criteria and evidentiary standards. Although this categorization allows for nuanced application, it leads to a fragmented framework. Courts have thus far refrained from adopting a unified test, resulting in inconsistencies in application and interpretative uncertainty. Nevertheless, the current analysis supported the emerging scholarly and judicial view that a single, objective standard of apparent bias—centered on maintaining public confidence—could offer a more coherent and accessible doctrine. Moreover, the legal consequences of bias in administrative decisions—ranging from voidness to voidability—highlight a lack of consistency in available remedies. Outcomes often depend on judicial discretion and the nature of the administrative act, creating ambiguity that may undermine the predictability of the legal system. Despite these challenges, the British courts have consistently emphasized the need to balance procedural safeguards with practical considerations, particularly in specialized or technical administrative contexts. Finally, this research underscored the rule against bias as both a normative and functional safeguard. It serves not only to ensure the integrity of individual decisions but also to reinforce the broader legitimacy of administrative governance. The continued evolution of this doctrine in the U.K. law reflects an ongoing effort to reconcile formal legal principles with the imperatives of effective, accountable, and transparent public administration.
 
 
 

Conclusion

The rule against bias remains a fundamental principle of procedural fairness in the U.K. administrative law. Although the British courts have adopted a more flexible, context-sensitive approach—moving away from outdated distinctions between judicial and administrative functions—the absence of a unified standard for identifying bias continues to result in inconsistency. The tripartite framework of bias offers analytical clarity but complicates the predictability. The growing recognition of both material and immaterial interests as grounds for disqualification reflects the expansive scope of the rule, yet also underscores the need for a coherent, objective test grounded in public confidence. While breaches of the rule may render decisions void or voidable, the courts strive to balance this with practical considerations, such as administrative efficiency and expertise. Ultimately, the rule against bias is evolving from a rigid, formalistic safeguard into a dynamic mechanism for ensuring fairness, legitimacy, and accountability in public decision-making.

Keywords

• The Rule against Bias
• Biased Administrative Decision
• Bias Test
• Void
• Voidable

Main Subjects

• Administrative Law