This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

GDL Law Notes GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes

Locus Standi Notes

Updated Locus Standi Notes

GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes

GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law

Approximately 509 pages

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of applications from mostly first class students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor".
...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Locus Standi

  • The applicant requires permission of the court to apply for JR (CPR 54.4).

    • S.31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 requires the applicant to have ‘sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates’

  • For a closed system of standing:

    • 1) Safeguards against the wasting of the courts time – the court would only hear important meritorious applications.

    • 2) Safeguard for public authorities – prevents them wasting time and money.

    • 3) Indicates a long-standing bias of English common law that you get the best argument from the person most closely affected.

  • For an open system of standing:

    • 1) Access to the court is preserved for public spirited individuals.

    • 2) The more people who are qualified to challenge the more careful decision makers can be expected to be.

    • 3) Reinforces rule-of-law requirement that no-one is above the law.

    • 3) It is not the case that a relatively closed system will always produce the best challenges; The most directly affected will not always be the most informed.

      • Pressure groups, representative bodies etc. may be able to deploy more affective arguments.

  • Early Approach to Standing:

    • Ware v Regent’s Canal Co (1858) – Lord Chelmsford held that only the Attorney General had the right to apply for JR.

    • Boyce v Paddington BC [1903] – introduced an early test for standing

      • Standing could be satisfied in these circumstances on two grounds:

        • 1) The applicant had a private legal right which was affected. OR

        • 2) The applicant was intensely and atypically affected.

      • Diceyan influence: what matters are private rights.

  • Being interested in a case is not the same as having an interest in the case.

    • R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Small Businesses – ‘Fleet Street Casuals’ [1982] – casual workers in newspaper industry in Fleet St. Would pick up pay packets under false names to avoid being pursued for tax. IRC stated that in return for workers undertaking to give their true details in the future they would not be pursued for arrears in tax.

      • National Fed of Small Businesses were infuriated by unequal treatment.

      • Case lacks a clear and consistent ratio, except that the Federation did nto have standing (unanimous)

      • Lord Scarman described the ‘sufficient interest’ test as being a mixed question of law and fact

      • Held that there were two stages to standing:

        • 1) Permission to Leave as required by parliament. Designed to turn away ‘busybodies, cranks and other mischief-makers.’

          • Here there is no consideration of the substantive merits because this is an ‘ex parte’ hearing, meaning that the potential defendant is not present at this stage.

        • 2) At the substantive hearing a more rigorous review of ‘sufficiency of interest’ may occur, taking into account some of the facts of the case.

          • Held sufficiency of interest does not relate to how closely involved the claimant is but rather (contra legem) is a matter of the merits of the case.

          • Lord Wilberforce held that there were different standing tests depending on the remedy sought.

          • Lord Diplock held that 1978 reforms had swept this away and there was only one test.

  • It is possible for no one to have sufficiency of interest.

    • ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] – trust created to pressure SecS to list the remains of an ancient theatre as a protected monument. They failed and sought a quashing order against his refusal and a mandatory order to compel him to reconsider.

      • Application refused on merits and insufficiency of standing.

      • Schiemann J: individuals who did not have standing would not gain it just because they formed themselves into a group or a company in order (no such thing as cumulative standing).

        • Recognised that in this case no one may have sufficiency of interest – this may...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes.

More GDL Constitutional And Administrative Law Samples