P was a pressure group appealing the benefits decision of D based on the fact that questions should have been referred to a more senior officer. CA held that there was standing, though this was without hearing argument on the matter because D tried to say that it wasn’t advancing a defence based on standing. Woolf LJ rejected this approach because it goes to the jurisdiction of the court and if the court has to decide to grant P relief (not the case here, as it happens, because P lost) then it would also have to say that P had standing in the first place. NB no reasons given for saying that P had standing.
