I am assuming that you were given sufficient notice and if not, you ought to have been given so that you prepare against the allegations. But the main point which you need to take in mind is that you are entitled to a prior notice before the hearing is done and before you appear for the same. (www.wikipedia.org)At the same time Paul, you need to understand that the adequate notice you are entitled to under the principles of natural justice ought to be accompanied by an explanation of the allegations which were levelled against you in the complaint, and at the same time notice about procedure for determination of the alleged misconduct should have been communicated to you to constitute sufficient notice."According to Fortescue J, the first hearing was given in the Garden of Eden". (J.J.Upadhaya, Administrative Law, Central Law Urgency, 4th edition.2001, pg151). His Lordship observed in King vs. .Chancellor, University of Cambridge. "Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence" "Adam," says God "where art you Has though not eaten of the fruits of the trees whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldn't not eat"(ibid).In the above the lord is trying to state that before any condemnation is made or a decision, which is going to adversely affect the alleged, a hearing must be given.
After having been given a notice, if at all it was given to you Paul, the Institute's disciplinary committee ought to have given you a hearing. As I mentioned above, you have the right to that hearing otherwise, this must have been unfair hearing simply because you were not given that right.
Paul, I have based my argument on the principle that no one should be condemned unheard (www.welfare.i.e). Before any adverse action was taken against you they ought to have given you an opportunity of being heard.
"In Cooper v.Wandersworth Board of works. The Board had power to demolish any building without giving an opportunity of hearing, if it was erected without prior permission. The Board issued order under which the house of the plaintiff was demolished. The action was brought against the board because it had used that power without giving the owner an opportunity of being heard. Although the action of the board was not in violation of the statutory provision, the court held that no man can be deprived of his property without having an opportunity of being heard". (Administrative Law, by J.J.Upadahaya, Central Law Urgency, pg 170,4th edition, 2001).In the above case Paul, statutory provisions provided that demolition be done if the structure was erected illegally but the court was not of the opinion that,such action be taken without the owner of the building being afforded an opportunity of being heard. As much as the regulatory body felt that your licence should not be renewed, simply because of a complaint, true or not true, the mistake committed hear is that they ought to have allowed you to defend your self by affording you a hearing.
I have also had an opportunity to note that, upon reaching their decision, the regulatory body did not disclose the reason, which they relied on to arrive at their decision of not renewing your licence, Paul, and you ought to be given a reason for that. Every decision that adversely affects an aggrieved person must contain reasons supporting it.
In their decision Paul, they