This is an extract of our Locus Standi document, which we sell as part of our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Cambridge/Bpp/College Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble 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:
The applicant requires permission of the court to apply for JR (CPR
o 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:
o 1) Safeguards against the wasting of the courts time - the court would only hear important meritorious applications.
o 2) Safeguard for public authorities - prevents them wasting time and money.
o 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:
o 1) Access to the court is preserved for public spirited individuals.
o 2) The more people who are qualified to challenge the more careful decision makers can be expected to be.
o 3) Reinforces rule-of-law requirement that no-one is above the law.
o 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:
o Ware v Regent's Canal Co (1858) - Lord Chelmsford held that only the Attorney General had the right to apply for JR.
o Boyce v Paddington BC  - 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.
o R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Small
Businesses - 'Fleet Street Casuals'  - 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.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Constitutional and Administrative Law Notes.