lOMoARcPSD|7138572

Locus Standi Essay

LLB (University of London)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

Locus Standi Essay

There are three potential parties in a Judicial Review claim.The

defendant, the claimant and the interested party. According to
Section 31(3) of Supreme Court Act 1981, the defendant must be
someone with “sufficient interest” in the matter to which the
decision relates. Here sufficient is a legal question not a practical
question. This is Locus Standi.

Every citizen has an interest in decision making of the

government and its legality is a matter of great public interest. It
is an important concept of the rule of law and the ultra vires
doctrine is concerned with the legality of the decision rather than
an appeal on the merits of such decision.

The modern rule of Locus Standi and the courts approach has
been labialized on red light, green light and amber light theory by
Harlow and Rowling. The red light theory refers to the protection
of Human Rights through effective challenges and the green light
theory refers to the protection of public bodies from unnecessary
challenges for effective administration. The red light theory
upholds the doctrine of rule of law by enabling the courts to
ensure that everyone including the government is under the law.
The courts however are not so clear as expected and they tend to
follow the amber light theory since it is more pragmatic in nature.

What constitutes “sufficient interest” is a matter of mixed facts

and law. The leading authority in this area is the R v Inland
Revenue Council ex p. Nat Federation of self-employed and small
business Ltd. Case where it was held that the issue is relevant
both at permissible and substantive hearing state. The

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

permissible state is designed to clear out hopeless and

applications to prevent abuse by busy bodies and the test of the
full hearing is whether the claimant can show a strong enough
case on the merit of application. Hence, the merit of the case and
standing of the claimant are linked.

In ex p. Johnson husband was not held to have sufficient standing

on a case related to serious fraud which was against his wife.
Standing depends on who is more appropriate to bring the claim.
In ex p. Child Poverty it was held that a person can have sufficient
standing provided he has no private interest. Moreover, a person
cannot have sufficient interest simply by writing to the decision
maker and receiving a reply and nor can a group of individuals by
forming a group or company. This was considered in ex p. Rose
Theatre Trust Company. Mere busy bodies not held to have
sufficient interest. (ex p. Argyll)

In recent times the courts seen to have adopted a more liberal

approach in

In ex p. Smedley tax payers and electorates had sufficient

standing. In ex p. Rees Mogg a person sincere interest in
constitutional affairs was held to be sufficient for standing.

However, pressure groups and public interest groups may also

have sufficient interest standing in suitable cases (ex p. CPAG).
But not all pressure groups can have sufficient standing. This was
consider in ex p. Green Peace. This introuduced a number of
factors such as the nature and extent of the claimant, the remedy
and nature of the relief sought. The court also added that this is a
matter of discretion for the courts.

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

Public interest groups may also have standing, but that too with
strict compliance with the rules, i.e. delay would be tolerated less
readily (ex p World Development Movement). It was held that in
case of delay a public interest claim could struck out whereas a
private claimant will be allowed to proceed.

Moreover. There is a different test for standing in Human Rights

cases. Act 34 of ECHR and S.7 (1) of HRA 1998 provides that the
person challenging must be a victim of the action complained of.
This is known as the victim test. However the term victim is not
defined anywhere. (Cullen v Chief Constable)

Despite all these the courts view on Locus Standi has remained
unchanged. The Law Commission Report of 1994 suggested to
create a two track system namely, personal standing and public
interest standing. P Cane also put forward the idea of personal
and representational standing.

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)