the requirement for standing

Question 1

define standing

Answer 1

the requirement that a party must be directly affected by the issues or matters involved in a case for the court to be able to hear and determine it

Question 2

explain standing

Answer 2

• Courts can only create precedent and make law once a party decides to pursue a case.
• A party cannot bring a case to court unless the court has the authority or jurisdiction to hear the matter.
• The initiating party must have standing (locus standi) to pursue the case, meaning they must be directly affected by the issues involved.
• In the High Court, standing is particularly strict; a party must show a ‘special interest’ in the case, meaning they are more affected than the general public and would gain or lose more materially from the outcome.
• The requirement for standing ensures that court resources are used efficiently and that cases have merit, preventing frivolous actions.
• However, the standing requirement can prevent individuals with a general interest from pursuing cases on behalf of others or for public interest, potentially limiting access to justice for those who cannot represent themselves.

Question 3

Standing explanation points

Answer 3

• In a court case, the initiating party must have standing, meaning they must be directly affected by the issues involved to commence legal proceedings.
• In the High Court, a party must have a ‘special interest,’ indicating they are more affected than the general public.
• The requirement for standing ensures that cases are brought by those genuinely affected, preventing the waste of court resources on cases with no direct impact.
• It encourages individuals not directly affected to seek other avenues of redress, such as lobbying, petitioning, or demonstrating, instead of pursuing legal action.

Question 4

Standing discussion points

Answer 4

• The requirement for standing means that people who have a general interest in a case (e.g. where legislation potentially breaches individual rights) have no right to pursue a legal challenge on behalf of public interest or the common good.
• It means that potential improvements to the law that could have been made by listening to those with only intellectual interest in the case are lost.