b) “The issue of locus standi is no longer relevant for bringing a claim of judicial review.” Discuss.

[Maximum 900 words]

Judicial Review (JR) is essentially whereby proceedings are brought against bodies which exercise public
law functions which may not necessarily be a part of the government. These bodies must breach one or
more of the common law or constitutional rights of persons to be held liable in a JR action. However in
order to maintain an action in JR an individual must have locus standi. Locus standi or standings denotes
basically the entitlement or capacity to institute an action or more so the ability to appear in a court.
Traditionally locus standi was a threshold issue that was determined before the merits or substantive
issues of the case were addressed. However, recent judicial approaches suggest that the merits or
substantive issues should be determined first. This led many to believe that locus standi is no longer
relevant to JR, however one may submit that locus standi is extremely relevant as it continues to serve its
original purpose which is ensure that a person challenging a decision of a public authority has some
relationship to the decision made so as to prevent the floodgates fear, safeguard the role of the court in
remaining a judicial body and maintain separation of powers.
The reality is that not everyone is permitted to utilize the court’s jurisdiction in the form of a JR
proceedings. Locus standi remains relevant because it continues to be concerned about the nature of the
party’s interest and the fact that there must be some relationship with the decision. Originally only a
human person could have been said to have locus standi, but it is now trite law since Antigua Times
legal personalities can maintain an action in JR. The law continued to expand until the decision in ex
parte World Development Movement which allowed pressure groups and NGOs to be permitted to utilize
the court’s jurisdiction. This was seen in Trinidad and Tobago Civil Rights Association v AG of Trinidad
and Tobago (2007) where an NGO and an individual had standing to file a constitutional motion
challenging the constitutionality of a Bill. However what has remained the same is that once there is no
relationship to the decision made the courts will not utilize its jurisdiction. In another case that involved
the same NGO it was held to not have standing on behalf of residents of a village in Trinidad for the
purpose of challenging the decision of Cabinet not to re-appoint the first Chairman of the Environmental
Commission at the expiration of his initial term of office - Trinidad and Tobago Civil Rights Association
v Patrick Manning (2004). Ex parte Blackburn and Ex parte Bulger also shows that busy bodies and
third parties will not have standings if there is no relationship with the decision which is directly linked to
preventing the floodgates fear which continues to make locus standi relevant. The rationale continues to
be if a party does not have locus standi the numbers of cases will be fewer, and the court will not be over
litigated with a huge number of cases. This can prevent the misuse of the already limited resources.
As mentioned the relationship with the decision or standings was the threshold issue regardless of the
type of person, may it be a legal person, a human, pressure group or NGO as the courts will not act
beyond its judicial capacity and become a social institution even with the changes the decision in ex parte
World Development Movement brought about when the courts opted to ascertain first the substantive
issues namely, the importance of vindicating the rule of law, importance of the issue raised, the likely
absence of any other responsible challenger and the nature of the breach against which relief is sought.
The final such scenario is even if merits and public interest is satisfied once there are breaches of
separation of powers an individual will not have standings. Although Rawlins JA suggested that the
criteria from ex parte World Development Movement be used in determining whether a case has merit for
the purpose of establishing standing - Francois v AG of St Lucia (2003), if a matter is found to lack locus
standi, then, irrespective of merits the courts will not adjudicate the claim. It is with these in mind that
locus standi continue to remain relevant in JR.