When Fairness Feels Out of Reach

When something feels “off” in a system, at work, in an institution, or in government, it could be because fairness hasn’t been applied properly (Mullan, 2010).

Natural justice is the guiding principle behind fair decision-making. It is the moral compass of the law, ensuring that power is exercised responsibly. At its core, natural justice says: everyone has the right to be heard, and decisions must be made impartially. Think of it as the why of fairness: timeless, philosophical, and universal (Groves, 2004; Meyerson & Mackenzie, 2011).

Procedural fairness  is how that principle comes to life. It’s the practical side: was notice given? Could the person respond? Were all relevant facts considered? Was the decision-maker unbiased? Where natural justice is the principle, procedural fairness is the roadmap. It's the mechanism that turns an idea into action (Mullan, 2010; Groves, 2004).

Even when society expects fairness, the law moves slowly. Its design prioritises stability: rules, precedents, and legislative processes provide certainty. This is why laws can feel outdated long before society feels ready for change. Friction appears when systems no longer reflect the values of the people they govern (Hart, 1961).

Change rarely comes from the law quietly correcting itself. It comes through pushback. Individuals challenge decisions, communities raise their voices, and courts and legislatures respond. Over time, procedural fairness  expands, rules evolve, and the law realigns with societal expectations. Natural justice provides the measuring stick, procedural fairness the mechanism, and societal pressure the momentum (Groves, 2004; Meyerson & Mackenzie, 2011).

The “11th hour” is often the moment when people notice that a system has drifted from fairness. It’s the tipping point for meaningful correction. Natural justice doesn’t automatically correct errors, and procedural fairness alone cannot enforce change. It is the combination of principle, process, and action that ensures systems remain accountable (Mullan, 2010).

Law changes slowly by design. However fairness, when people insist on it, eventually shapes outcomes, restores legitimacy, and keeps institutions aligned with society’s values (Hart, 1961; Groves, 2004).

Feeling overwhelmed or uncertain about a situation that doesn’t feel fair?

Sometimes, just talking it through can help you regain perspective and clarity.

At the 11th HR clinic, we provide a safe space online to explore your experiences, process your responses, and develop strategies for moving forward.

Make an appointment today and take the first step toward clarity and wellbeing.

References

Groves, M. (2004). The unfolding purpose of fairness. Federal Law Review, 32(2), 123–145.

Groves, M. (2004). Waiver of natural justice. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 10(1), 45–67.

Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford University Press.

Mullan, D. J. (2010). Natural justice and fairness. Routledge.

Meyerson, D., & Mackenzie, C. (2011). Procedural justice and the law. Cambridge University Press.