Substantive Legitimate Expectations: Re-shaping the Boundaries of Judicial Reach in Public Law Remedies in Commonwealth Jurisdictions.

The article focuses on the doctrine of legitimate expectations in public law, tracing its evolution from a procedural safeguard requiring public authorities to provide a hearing before deviating from promises or established practices, to a doctrine capable of granting substantive relief to affected individuals. Originating in English common law, the doctrine traditionally limited remedies to procedural fairness, but landmark cases such as *Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service* (the GCHQ case) and *R v. North & East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan* expanded its scope to include substantive outcomes, though this expansion remains contested in various jurisdictions. The article surveys the doctrine's treatment across common law countries—including England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, and Botswana—highlighting differing judicial attitudes shaped by constitutional principles like separation of powers and the rule of law. It concludes that while substantive legitimate expectations face resistance in some jurisdictions, there is a growing recognition of their importance in ensuring fairness, accountability, and predictable governance, with Botswana's courts recently engaging this issue more explicitly.