Case law began to muddle in Maclean v. The Workers` Union  1 Ch 602. In this case, Maugham J.A., who sat in the Chancery Division, noted that while a contract between the parties established rules of procedure for the exercise of the parties` powers, the courts could not rely on independent requirements of natural justice to supplement the rules agreed upon by the parties themselves (pp. 623-625). Lord Denning MR reaffirmed his approach five years later in Enderby Town FC Ltd v Football Association Ltd  1 Ch 591. This case and Nagle v. Feilden were written by Megarry V-C in McInnes v. Onslow-Fane  1 WLR 1520 – an ordinary private law injunction action – admitted as evidence that the courts have “the right to intervene to enforce reasonable requirements of natural justice and equity” (1528), even if, as in McInnes itself, there was no contract between the parties. If discretion is silent on the procedures to be followed by administrative authorities, the principles of natural justice apply. It has been suggested that the differences between the two tests are largely semantic and that the two tests work similarly. In the Locabai case, the judges stated that in a large proportion of cases, the application of both tests would lead to the same result. It was also stated that “[t]he fact that the court, as the personification of the reasonable man, adopts an approach based on general common sense, and without undue reliance on special knowledge, details of the trial or other matters beyond the competence of the reasonably well-informed ordinary public, There should be no risk: that the courts will not ensure that justice is done as well as it is perceived by the public.
to do.” : 477 In Singapore High Court decision Tang Kin Hwa v. Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (2005), Justice Commissioner Andrew Phang concluded that the test of true likelihood is in fact similar to that of reasonable suspicion. First, probability is actually a “possibility,” as opposed to the higher standard of proof, which focuses on “probability.” Second, he proposed that actual probability could not be understood as “real” because this criterion refers to an apparent bias, not a real bias. He also noted that the views of the Court and the public are “part and parcel of a holistic process” without the need to make a clear distinction between them. : 617–8 In such cases, there are strong political considerations that support the principle that a trial can never be considered fair if a person is detained in ignorance of the charges against him. First, because reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in terrorist activities can range from irrefutable evidence to innocent misinterpretation of facts that can be explained by the individual, in many cases it is impossible for courts to be sure that disclosure of the evidence makes no difference to the plaintiff. Second, the individual, family and friends will feel resentful if sanctions are imposed without adequate justification and if the non-disclosure of information puts the individual in a position where they cannot adequately defend themselves. As Lord Phillips said: “If the general public is to have confidence in the justice system, they must be able to see justice done, rather than being asked to accept it with confidence. : 355 Natural justice allows a person to exercise his or her right to be adequately notified of the date, time and place of the hearing and to be informed in detail of the matter to be satisfied.  This information gives the individual sufficient time to effectively prepare his or her own case and respond to the complaint against him. Moreover, preliminary decisions do not normally trigger the duty to act in good faith, but decisions of a more definitive nature may have such an effect.
: para. 30 In addition, whether a duty to act is appropriate depends on the relationship between the authority and the individual. There is no obligation if the relationship is one between master and servant, or if the person holds a position at will of authority. On the other hand, there is a duty to act fairly if the person can only be removed for cause.  : para. 32 Finally, the right to a fair trial exists only if the decision of a public authority is significant and has a significant impact on the individual.  : Paragraph 39 There are cases where an unqualified arbitrator cannot be replaced because no one else is authorized to act.