Locus Standi

Question 0

O’Reilly v Mackman

Answer 0

Relaxed application of locus standi did not apply to private law remedies such as declaration and injunction

Question 1

The Fleet Street Casuals Case (IRC)

Answer 1

The judges attempted to give answers to questions about standing, although the ratio isn’t clear, there are a series of principles which are of a strong influence

Question 2

Steeples v Derbyshire County Council

Answer 2

Webster J concluded that the standing test should be the same for public and private law but this view was not widely shared

Question 3

Barrs v Bethell

Answer 3

Standing was refused for a private law route and Warner J questioned the authority upon which Denning had made some of his more liberal claims at standing – considerable reliance was placed on Heywood case

Question 4

Ashby v Edon

Answer 4

IRC makes no difference to the Gouriet rationale (exceptions under old law) – need to bring themselves within the Boyce test, cannot circumvent

Question 5

Smedley

Answer 5

The looser standing requirements, although not transferred to the private stream were taken up by the lower courts in public issues

Question 6

Blackburn v AG

Rees-Mog

Answer 6

Even before the IRC, standing was liberally applied where citizens came forward on constitutional issues (this one EC-related) even where there was a weak legal argument
Reinforced post-IRC - a weak legal argument will still be given standing where there is a ‘sincere concern for const. issues’

Question 7

Felixstowe Justice

Answer 7

Extended standing for constitutional issues by deeming that ‘any public spirited citizen’ would have standing in a matter of public interest –

Question 8

Whitehouse

Answer 8

The argument that the IRC was de facto if not de jure pushing towards a citizen’s actions test was buttressed here - Watkins LJ held that every TV licence holder would have sufficient interest

Question 9

Argyll Group

Answer 9

Tried to lend a more complicated view between the leave stage and full hearing but this case confirms that in this particular field, the text of the relevant statutory provisions has had little substantive impact on how the courts are developing the law

Question 10

Covent Garden Community Association v Greater London Council

Answer 10

Even though this was a representative group with a purpose, standing was granted, but probably because many or all of the member would have been entitled to standing qua individuals

Question 11

Child Poverty Action Group

Answer 11

Standing was allowed for the representative group where they were expert and responsible and it would have been difficult to bring standing on an individual basis

Question 12

Rose Theatre Trust

Answer 12

Schieman J denied standing for this group even though they were non-partisan and well-intentioned, the fact that a gvt body may have acted unlawfully did not mean anyone at all had a right to standing – he said it was ‘to avoid chaos’ to have rules

Question 13

Greenpeace (No. 2)

Answer 13

Standing was granted but emphasis was placed on Greenpeace’s unique expertise, which would have meant an individual could not have brought a case easily, and the fact that they had many members and UN status

Question 14

World Development Movement

Answer 14

Although not automatic there is a strong presumption of standing for pressure groups

Question 15

Garnett

Answer 15

This case shows that standing principles are by no means iron-clad - Popplewell J seemed to allude to Schieman’s chaos point even though they were concerned individuals and not busybodies

Question 16

Dixon

Answer 16

Seems to contravene Garnett and put the reasoning of Popplewell J as an anomaly – it lays down the principles of the IRC and recognises a citizens’ action basis