Standing Flashcards
(10 cards)
What is permission and how is this governed?
Civil Procedural Rules, Part 54
54.4 Courts permission is required in a claim for judicial review
54.6 Sets out the claim form and must request permission
In order to get permission you must show that the claim is arguable with a realistic prospect of success (claim must be arguable not just possible)
What statutory provision deals with standing?
S31 Senior Courts Act 1981
(1) Allows for mandatory, quashing or prohibiting order as well as injunctions in an action of judicial review
(3) No application for judicial review shall be made unless the leave of the High Court has been obtained, and the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it considers that the applicant has sufficient interest in the matter
What was established in the case of Boddington v British Transport Police?
B was entitled to bring a ‘collateral challenge’ which are an alternative to judicial review and a way to attack the validity of an administrative decision
‘Only the clear language of a statute could take away the right of a D’
What does S7 HRA say about standing?
(1) A person who claims a public authority has acted in breach of S6 can bring proceedings only if they would be a victim
(3) Applicant is taken to have sufficient interest if they would be a victim of the crime
What does R v IRC, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed say about standing?
- NFSE did not have sufficient interest
- In simple cases where it is clear early there is no standing leave can be refused
- In other cases, the question must be considered in the ‘legal and factual context’
- Merits of the case must be examined to determine standing, applicants need not raise a specific right or detriment
What was said in the Rose Theatre case?
- A person cannot obtain sufficient interest by writing a letter to a secretary of state
- Function of the court is not for every interested individual to have their action litigated, Parliament could have granted this but it has not
- The court will have to look at the statute and matter to which the application relates and determine whether the statute gives the individual a greater right or expectation than others
This focuses on an individualist model of standing focusing on protecting personal rights rather than public good. Judegment is wrong reading of Federation: narrow standing was due to legislative context
How did the case of Greenpeace develop the law on standing?
Two stages to sufficient interest, the first excludes those with no interest and mere ‘busybodies’, the second is to be applied at full hearing including nature of the applicant, their interest and the remedy sought
Declined to follow Rose Theatre on the ground that it concerned different facts
What futher developments have been made on the law of standing since the Rose Theatre case?
- Walton v Scottish Ministers: Distinction must be drawn between mere busybodies and person affected who have reasonable concern in the matter. There may be cases in which any individual, simply a citizen, will have sufficient interest. Rule of law would not be maintained if, because everyone was equally affected, no one was able to bring proceedings
- World Development Movement: Once permission is granted the merits of the challenge are an important factor when considering standing. For an advocacy group to have a claim: the issue must be important to the public, no one else could make a responsible challenge and they have a prominent role in the field (STANDING)
- R v Somerset CC, ex p Dixon: Rejected Rose Theatre and endorsed a strong version of public interest. Demanding something akin to a special private interest for standing at the leave stage is misconceived
What is significant about the case of R (DSD) v Parole Board?
- The Mayor did not have sufficient interest for standing as his statutory functions did not relate to the parole board
- HOWEVER, the victims has standing because there was evidence that Worboys shouldn’t have been released due to other potential victims and an on-going newton trial that the board should have considered
What have the most recent cases said about standing?
- Good Law Project (2021): GLP had standing because a challenge alleging breach under the related policy was not one that an economic operator could realistically be relied upon to bring. MPs did not have standing since there was already a claimant with standing
- Good Law Project (2022): Lacked standing. Was not affected in any tangible way by award of public contracts, the breach was not grave and little weight was to be attached to their experience and expertise
- R (Good Law Project & Runnymede Trust) v The Prime Minister: Whilst there has been general trend towards liberalisation on standing, the courts will still consider position carefully and dismiss grounds with no sufficient interest. Group cannot make its objects clause so wide as to make any error fall into its remit
Cases concerning procurement and COVID-19
