EUROPEAN & INTERNATIONAL LAW Substantive Legitimate Expectations in South African and European Administrative Law By Geo Quinot * A. Introduction The doctrine of legitimate expectation was authoritatively accepted as part of South African administrative law in the landmark case of Administrator, Transvaal v Traub 1 in 1989. 2 In that case Chief Justice Corbett extended the scope of application of the rules of natural justice, specifically the audi principle, 3 beyond the traditional “lib- erty, property and existing rights” formula to cases where something less than an existing right, a legitimate expectation, required a fair procedure to be followed. 4 This acceptance followed the trend in other Commonwealth jurisdictions to extend the application of the rules of natural justice and hence afford greater procedural protection to individuals affected by administrative decisions. 5 Although Chief Justice Corbett expressly stated that the content of the expectation may be substan- tive or procedural in nature, 6 the protection of that expectation, if found to be le- gitimate, was exclusively procedural. 7 Since the Traub decision, the doctrine of * BA LLB (Stellenbosch) LLM (Virginia), lecturer University of Stellenbosch, gquinot@sun.ac.za. 1 Administrator, Transvaal v Traub 1989 (4) SA 731 (A). 2 For a discussion of this development see CORA HOEXTER, THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VOLUME 2, 209 (2002); G E DEVENISH ET AL., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND JUSTICE IN SOUTH AFRICA, 307 (2001); John Hlophe, Legitimate Expectation and Natural Justice: English, Australian, and South African Law, 104 SALJ 165 (1987). 3 The audi alteram partem principle, which in its most basic form requires the administrator to afford affected parties the right to be heard before taking a decision which would adversely affect them. 4 Traub, supra note 1, at 761 D-G. 5 Id. 754G – 761D where Corbett CJ examines the development of the doctrine in English law and also refers to the acceptance of the doctrine in Australia and New Zealand. 6 Id. 758D: The expectation may be that the individual will acquire some substantive benefit, such as a license, that is a substantive expectation, or simply that the individual will be heard before a decision is taken, that is a procedural expectation. Corbett CJ also notes that the two forms of expectation may even merge, Id. 758E. 7 Id. 761E, 764A.