A more recent version of these Standing notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Administrative Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Extent of the rules derives from red/green light model (i) red?everyone should be a policeman = wide standing rules (ii) green?ombudsman/AG should make decisions Law normally starts from position that remedies are correlative to rights, so that only those w/rights are eligible for award of remedies. In private law, this can apply w/strictness but in public law it would be to ignore the dimension of public interest/
s31(3) Senior Courts Act -only those w/sufficient interest can bring JR ? standing can be considered permission &
substantive stages Rationale
Schiemann - where courts prevent a party from enforcing the law, the law is regarding it as preferable for an illegality to continue than for an excluded person to have access to the courts
2 opposing models (i) Open System
- Would be a grave lacuna in the law if pressure group couldn't vindicate the rule of law (Diplock in Fleet Street Casuals)
- Desirable that admins are called to account
- Will bring about great deal of care
- Some rights are so collective or diffuse that no individual has sufficient interest to vindicate (ii) Closed System
- Being sued is a distraction from business of government
- Making administrator focus less on quality of decision & more on making it judge-proof
- Financial costs of litigation borne by public purse
- Delays: building of Royal Opera house was held up by 1 year on basis of ineffective JR challenge Pre-1978 Law
Lack of consistency? different remedies attracted different tests (even some different approaches being used in case law for the same remedy!) a) Injunction - any person whose own legal rights are under threat from public authority can seek injunction. If a public right is under threat, C may seek it in 2 cases: i. interference w/ public law right is such that some private right of P is interfered w/ at the same time ii. C suffers special damage peculiar to himself from interference w/public right b) Declaration - C for declaration doesn't have to have subsisting cause of action or a right to some other relief but some legal right of his own must be at issue, actually or contingently c) Quashing Order (Certiorari) & Prohibiting Order (Mandamus) - prerogative remedies
? Craig: to describe it as unnecessarily confused would be to pay it a compliment Post 1978 Law
Only C w/sufficient interest in the matter will have standing ? Ord. 53 (Pt 54 CPR) & s31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 ? "threshold question" (determined permission stage) ? C won't be allowed to proceed if he has no interest at all or no sufficient interest (prevents busybodies, cranks & mischief makers) = 2 stage process post IRC: a) Permission - turn away hopeless/meddlesome apps b) Whether C can show sufficient case on merits, judging in relation to his own concern w/it
? Law Commission: should have a two track system where standing would be refused unless C has been or will be adversely affected & court considers it's in public interest for application to be made (1994)
= "In the matter" - standing is related to the facts rather than particular remedy sought so that uniform test should apply to all apps. Denning - rule lays down one simple test & gives standing to ordinary citizen who comes asking that the law be declared & enforced.
? Wade & Forsyth: novel aspect of stage 2 is that it doesn't appear to be a test of standing but rather one of merits. The essence of standing as a distinct concept is that C w/good case on merits may have insufficient interest to be allowed to pursue it. HL's new criterion would seem virtually to abolish requirement of standing in this sense. So it's now seldom a determining issue. If merits are weak, cae fails w/out consideration of standing; if strong, denial or relief for lack of standing is unlikely.
Any party w/genuine interest has standing, incl. public spirited citizens, not "mere busybodies " (Lord Diplock) o IRC, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed- Inland Revenue made a deal w/unions, workers, employers whereby if casuals (worked on Fleet St under fake names; paid no taxe) would fill in tax return forms for pasr 2 years the period up to that would be forgotten. Nat. Fed. argued this was UV. Held it had no standing - taxpayer's interest alone not sufficient. Diplock: permission stage is used to exclude claims made by "busybodiesw/misguided or trivial complaints" &
to allow PAs to safely proceed w/effecting their decision. It wouldbe grave lacuna in our system of public law if
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Administrative Law Notes.