![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> O, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for International Development [2014] EWHC 2371 (Admin) (14 July 2014) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/2371.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 2371 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
OF
JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
![]() ![]() Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
![]() |
____________________
THE QUEEN (![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Defendant |
____________________
Mr James Eadie QC and Ms Naina Patel (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing date 3 July 2014
____________________
VERSION
OF
JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Warby:
Time
Standing
Legal principles
"No application for judicialreview
shall be made unless the leave
of
the High Court has been
obtained
in accordance with
rules
![]()
of
court; and the court shall not grant leave to make such an application unless it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application
relates."
"90 In AXA General Insurance Ltd andothers
![]()
v
HM Advocate and
others
[2011] UKSC 46; [2012] 1 AC 868; 2011 SLT 1061, this court clarified the approach which should be adopted to the question
of
standing to bring an application to the supervisory jurisdiction. In doing so, it intended to put an end to an unduly
restrictive
approach which had too
often
![]()
obstructed
the proper administration
of
justice: an approach which presupposed that the
only
function
of
the court's supervisory jurisdiction was to
redress
individual grievances, and ignored its constitutional function
of
maintaining the
rule
![]()
of
law.
91 As was said by Lord Hope and myself at paras 62 and 170respectively,
an applicant has to have sufficient interest: that is to say, an interest which is sufficient to justify his bringing the application before the court. In further explanation
of
that concept, Lord Hope said (para 63):
"I would not like torisk
a definition
of
what constitutes standing in the public law context. But I would hold that the words 'directly affected' which appear in
rule
58.8(2) capture the essence
of
what is to be looked for.
One
must,
of
course, distinguish between the mere busybody, to whom Lord Fraser
of
Tullybelton
referred
in
R
![]()
v
Inland
Revenue
Comrs, Ex p National Federation
of
Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, 646, and the interest
of
the person affected by
or
having a
reasonable
concern in the matter to which the application
related.
The inclusion
of
the word 'directly' provides the necessary qualification to the word 'affected' to enable the court to draw that distinction. A personal interest need not be shown if the individual is acting in the public interest and can genuinely say that the issue directly affects the section
of
the public that he seeks to
represent."
92 As is clear from that passage, a distinction must be drawn between the mere busybody and the person affected byor
having a
reasonable
concern in the matter to which the application
relates.
The words "directly affected", upon which the Extra Division focused, were intended to enable the court to draw that distinction. A busybody is someone who interferes in something with which he has no legitimate concern. The circumstances which justify the conclusion that a person is affected by the matter to which an application
relates,
![]()
or
has a
reasonable
concern in it,
or
is
on
the
other
hand interfering in a matter with which he has no legitimate concern, will plainly differ from
one
case to another, depending upon the particular context and the grounds
of
the application. As Lord Hope made plain in the final sentence, there are circumstances in which a personal interest need not be shown.
93 I also sought to emphasise that what constitutes sufficient interest has to be considered in the contextof
the issues
raised.
I
stated
(para 170):
"Arequirement
that the applicant demonstrate an interest in the matter complained
of
will not however
operate
satisfactorily if it is applied in the same way in all contexts. In some contexts, it is appropriate to
require
an applicant for judicial
review
to demonstrate that he has a particular interest in the matter complained
of:
the type
of
interest which is
relevant,
and therefore
required
in
order
to have standing, will depend upon the particular context. In
other
situations, such as where the excess
of
misuse
of
power affects the public generally, insistence upon a particular interest could prevent the matter being brought before the court, and that in turn might disable the court from performing its function to protect the
rule
![]()
of
law … What is to be
regarded
as a sufficient interest to justify a particular applicant's bringing a particular application before the court, and thus as conferring standing, depends therefore upon the context, and in particular upon what will best serve the purposes
of
judicial
review
in that context."
94 In many contexts it will be necessary for a person to demonstrate some particular interest inorder
to demonstrate that he is not a mere busybody. Not every member
of
the public can complain
of
every potential breach
of
duty by a public body. But there may also be cases in which any individual, simply as a citizen, will have sufficient interest to bring a public authority's
violation
![]()
of
the law to the attention
of
the court, without having to demonstrate any greater impact upon himself than upon
other
members
of
the public. The
rule
![]()
of
law would not be maintained if, because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no-
one
was able to bring proceedings to challenge it."
Facts
Submissions
Discussion
Arguability and permission
"3. The court should not intervene merely because it considers that further inquiries would have been sensibleor
desirable. It should intervene
only
if no
reasonable
authority could have been satisfied
on
the basis
of
the inquiries made that it possessed the information necessary for its decision."