Standing

Question 1

Senior courts Act

Answer 1

1981 s31 (3):
When considering basis for application of judciial review, must look at:
1. Whethwer outcome for applicant would be substantially different if conduct complained had not occurred
2. Must consider if defendent asks it to do so

Question 2

what was R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 [the ‘Fleet Street Casuals’ case] about?

Answer 2

• no standing
  Facts:
  Arrangement between newspaper and printing house located on fleet street to employ casual workers. Merged that workers were providing false names when collecting pay so impossible to determine tax they owed
  The then Inland Revenue—now Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Service (HMRC)—became aware of this arrangement and reached an agreement with the employers, the employee unions, and the workers to pay the preceding two years of tax owing, notwithstanding the fact that the evasion had been going on for considerably longer than this, and to pay the full amount of tax owed from then on (at 634–5). The terms of this agreement came to the attention of the National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses, which sought a review of the legality of the arrangement.
  The principle issues in the case were whether the Federation had sufficient interest (standing, locus standi) to bring the action, and when an assessment of standing should be made.

Decisions:
Federation did not have standing.
Lord Diplock preferred to dismiss the claim on the merits—there being no illegality proven—but agreed that the consequence of this was that the Federation could not be said to have a sufficient interest (at 644).
courts are willing to support campaign groups bringing a judicial review in the public interest where they have expertise that can enhance the quality of information available to the court, and where the organization can demonstrate that it is enabling redress to be sought by individuals who are not in a financial position to do so themselves.

Question 3

what precedents did fleet street casuals 1982 set out?

Answer 3

1. If C is less personally affected by the issue, his standing will be subject to greater scrutiny and he will have to compensate by persuading the court the matter is so important it should nevertheless be litigated
2. Standing is to be determined with reference to the legal and factual context of the case and NOT as a preliminary matter distinct from the substance of the case. (Lord Wilberforce)

Question 4

Dixon 1998

Answer 4

This confines ‘sufficient interest’ to ‘not acting in bad faith’ at the permission stage
SCC tried to claim that Plaintiff had no locus standi, but the court refused this argument, saying that the “permission stage” was to ensure that the applicant was not prompted by an ill motive, was a busybody or a trouble maker. The evidence did not suggest this.

Question 5

Good Law Project vs sshc

Answer 5

• non-governmental organisation with genuine expertise and experience in the area of decision-making under challenge may have standing depending on a holistic assessment of other factors: “the importance of vindicating the rule of law…; the importance of the issue raised…; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger…; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief is sought…; and the prominent role of the applicants [in the relevant subject area]” [96]
• However, the application of these general principles is acutely sensitive to context.

Question 6

world development movement 1995

Answer 6

• Rose LJ: The authorities referred to seem to me to indicate an increasingly liberal approach to standing on the part of the courts during the last 12 years.
• Furthermore, the merits of the challenge are an important, if not dominant, factor when considering standing

Question 7

Rose Theatre Trust Co 1990

Answer 7

• interest must be ‘sufficient’, although ‘a direct financial or legal interest is not required’ (at 520).
• However, ‘sufficient’ does not mean that one can ‘merely … assert that one has an interest’ (at 520).
• ‘that some thousands of people join together and assert … an interest does not create an interest’ nor does the incorporation of those without an interest into a company do so (at 520).

Question 8

Greenpeace 1994

Answer 8

• challenge of decision was well informed, which benefitted the court and interests of justice [82]
• standing can mean expertise knowledge to help courts make efficient, well informed decisions (link to fleet streets).

Question 9

Cane 1995

Answer 9

• three classifications of standing in this area: ‘associational’, ‘public interest’, and ‘surrogate’ (at 276) that court defined in GLP V PM

Question 10

GLP V PM 2022 definitions

Answer 10

1. Associational standing undertaken by, for example, a trade union on behalf of its members (see GLP v PM [22]).
2. Surrogate: where ‘others … may not be well placed to bring the action’ on their own behalf, a pressure group might do so as a surrogate (see GLP v PM, at [20]).
3. Finally, standing based on public interest should ‘represent the wider public interest, rather than merely that of a group with an identifiable membership’ (see [20]).

Question 11

cases supporting standing for campaign groups:

Answer 11

greenpeace 1994, world development movement 1995, dixon 1998

Question 12

world development movement 1995

Answer 12

liberal approach to standing

Question 13

cases for standing

Answer 13

dixon 1995, greenpeace 1994, cane 1995, fleet street casuals 1987, world dev movemnt 1995, rose theatre co 1990, GLP V PM 2022