Standing Remedies Notes

Standing & Remedies

Major issues

UK

• Public <> private divide –

  • no rigid divide in courts, no rigid divide in substance (eg mostly private law principles applied to determine liability of public bodies)

  • BUT distinct procedures and remedies for public law

• Standing not a major issue, but remedies & procedures are controversial

EU

• Standing a major problem (extremely narrow), but remedies & procedures are fairly well accepted

  • Direct (individuals before EU courts under art 263, can appeal up to ECJ)

    • Very difficult to get standing

  • indirect challenges (initiated in national courts – but national courts cannot rule on validity – makes reference under art 267 to ECJ)

    • Query whether this form of access compensates for difficulties in direct challenges

• But can’t just transplant UK standing laws – different context…

France

• Rigid divide between public & private law – different courts & distinct law – tribunal de conflit determines

UK law

Remedies

• Certiorari (renders void ab initio), mandamus (show duty on part of public body), prohibition – exclusive to public law

• Declarations, injunctions, habeas corpus, damages

• All remedies discretionary

Procedure

• Section 31 of Senior Courts Act; CPR 54

• 2-stage process (unlike EU where direct access)

  • Permission –

    • Must show

      • arguable case & reasonable chance of success –

      • standing – if have ‘sufficient interest’: s 31 SCA

        • relaxed standard re individuals, essentially applied only to remove vexatious litigants

      • within 3 month time-limit - generally strictly applied

    • appears to dispense with about 40% of cases

  • Full hearing –

    • Cross-examination and discovery are discretionary

• Justification for these restrictions

  • Protect public bodies & allow them to fulfil their public functions without undue disturbance

  • Apart from standing, no restriction in law on who could sue – unlike contract, etc, where only party to contract could sue

Principle of exclusivity – connection between process & remedies

• On move away from prerogative writs – principle of procedural exclusivity required all public law claims to go through that route: O’Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237

• Exceptions

  • When parties agree

  • Collateral attack – opting out of s 31 (where cause of action has public law element, can opt out but can’t get public law remedies) – particularly attractive in light of time limits

    • Where action primarily private law – eg contract claim against public body = primarily private

      • Roy v. Kensington & Chelsea FPC [1992] 1 AC 624 (dispute about Doctors’ contracts primarily private law – can opt out of s 31 procedure)

    • Where raised as a defence – procedural protection is to prevent abuse of process – if public law matters are being raised as defence, cannot be abuse of process

      • Boddington v. British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 (by-law preventing smoking in certain carriages of train – passenger fined for smoking – challenged validity of by-law in defence raised in defence so could opt out // but by-law turned out to be valid so defence was ineffective)

        • Procedural matter went all the way to the HL before the substance could be heard

  • Various other exceptions developed – shifting to abuse of process analysis – ie unless abuse of process, then special procedure protections for public bodies not necessary – see Clark v. University of Lincolnshire & Humberside [2000] 1 WLR 1988

• Created difficult rules & exceptions about public<>private divide

Standing

• Standing – if have ‘sufficient interest’: s 31 SCA

• Permission stage <> full hearing | individuals <> groups

  • Permission stage – low standard used to eliminate vexatious litigants

    • Rationale – allows JR to expose questionable activity & for JR to be used as political platform without necessarily allowing to go to full hearing

      • BUT doesn’t seem like an argument for lenient standing

  • Can also arise at full hearing: R. v. IRC, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed [1982] AC 617

    • May raise whether the best-placed litigant

Permission stage

• Individuals – generally standing granted unless vexatious

• Groups – easier than at full hearing – very rare not to get standing –

  • cf Al Haq (not granted standing – justiciability issue as well – Palestinian interest group challenged UK decision to give money to Israel – only challenge open was a constitutional one – from that point of view the only sufficient interest would be of a UK citizen no standing)

Full hearing

• Individuals – where indirectly affected by decision –

  • R. v. IRC, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed (Fleet Street Casuals Case) [1982] AC 617 (freelance journalists signing off with pseudonym to avoid tax – IRC reached tax settlement with journalists – Federation miffed because their honest members were paying tax – challenged validity of settlement ‘fusion’ approach to standing – consider likelihood of action being brought/being successful)

  • Bollinger (?) decision (victims’ family seeking JR of sentence of offender – teenagers killing toddler – perceived mandatory life sentence too harsh – sought JR no standing)

• Groups – inconsistently dealt with

  • Link to individuals

    • “associational” standing – bringing challenge on behalf of some of its members

    • “representative”/”surrogate” standing – group bringing challenge on behalf of others – because group better placed

    • generic public interest claims

  • More likely to get standing where group closely linked to interested individuals

    • R. v. Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace (No.2) [1994] 4 All ER 329 – members of Greenpeace lived in affected area

    • Child Poverty Action Group Case – representing people that are otherwise unlikely to have interests represented in courts

  • Or if have statutory responsibility

    • Eg Human Rights Commission, statutory body for protection of animals

    • OR if a responsible & recognised group – if longstanding group, consulted by government, etc

  • Groups...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Comparative Public Law Notes.