The understanding of natural justice may seem similar to that of natural law, but the two should not be equated on the same basis. The Aristotelian concept of « natural law » should not be confused with the old Latin term « ius naturale », which means natural law. The Aristotelian conception of natural law was essentially adopted by the Romans. « The law of nature (Jura Naturalia), which is equally observed in all nations and established by divine providence, remains fixed and immutable forever; But the law that each state has created for itself is often changed, either by legislation or by tacit consent of the people. However, the term natural law has not always had a consistent meaning. During its development through the centuries, it has succumbed to many variations and contradictions. [8] Natural law has thus been variously designated by various jurists as divine law, universal law or common law, eternal law, and sometimes the law of reason or natural law. The term « ius naturale » conveys the idea of a natural law that speaks of a physical natural law such as the natural law of gravity and a philosophical system of legal and moral principles that supposedly derive from a universalized conception of human and divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial measures. In the term « natural justice, » the word naturally tends to confuse readers because it causes the reader to add an ethical angle. In codified law, ethics may sometimes find its place, for example, it may be completely legal to refuse to pay prescribed debts, but the same can be described as unethical. However, the term natural justice has more to do with the procedural aspect of the process, process and outcome than with the legal theory behind it. However, the procedure and process must ensure « justice » and « fairness ». Over time, however, judges, nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, have often invoked natural justice combined with a reference to « justice and good conscience. » Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry[3] and is intended to express the close relationship between common law and moral principles,[4] the use of the term today should not be confused with the « natural law » of canonists, medieval philosophers` visions of an « ideal model of society, » or the 18th-century philosophy of « natural rights. » [5] While the concept of natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia,[6]583 and the United Kingdom,[3]:320 it has been largely replaced and expanded by the more general « duty to act fairly. » Natural justice is identified with the two components of a fair trial,[3][3] which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua or « no one is judge in his own case ») and the right to a fair trial (audi alteram partem or « to hear the other party »).

[7] Section 8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act 1946 requires the administrative authority to give reasons for its decisions. It is a due process clause of U.S. law. The Minister`s Powers Committee concluded that the reason supported by the decision is the principle of natural justice. The underlying concept is the fair treatment of those who may be affected by administrative measures. Decisions affecting individual freedom must, without exception, state the reasons on which they are based. In addition, as a general rule, a professional judge should give reasons for his decisions. [11] The principle applied must also complement relevance and fair disclosure. The principle of fair play is deeply rooted in the minds of English men.

In order to develop the principles of natural justice, a fair administrative procedure has been proposed by the courts, just as they control the actions of public authorities by rules of reasonableness and improper aim, the procedure chosen by them can be reviewed by the rule of natural justice. [12] The essence of the principle of natural justice is that it must be respected in the exercise of discretion; The granting of a wide margin of discretion is no exception to the application of the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, the law`s preference for a contractual approach to natural justice continued to dominate. The climax came in Byrne against Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 762. Against the decision of the defendant, a limited company founded to protect film distributors, that its members should no longer supply films to the plaintiff`s cinemas, an injunction and a declaration were sought from the Chancery Division. It was argued that this decision was taken after an unfair trial. The plaintiff admitted at trial that there was no contract between him and the defendant. Nevertheless, it was argued that arguments of natural justice could be raised in equitable proceedings. This argument was rejected by Justice Harman, who stated that « the existence of a contract is essential. » The possibility of introducing the principles of natural justice into equity when there was no contract between the parties was therefore firmly rejected.

Case law began to muddle in Maclean v. The Workers` Union [1929] 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). Natural justice allows a person to exercise his or her right to reasonable notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, as well as detailed notice of the matter to be satisfied. [35] This information gives the individual sufficient time to effectively prepare his or her own case and respond to the complaint against him.