Standing in judicial review cases in Australia
Standing in Judicial Review Cases in Australia
What is Standing?
Standing refers to the legal right or capacity of a person to bring a judicial review application challenging a government decision or action. To have standing, the applicant must demonstrate a sufficient connection or interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
Standing ensures that courts only hear cases brought by parties with a legitimate interest, avoiding frivolous or vexatious claims.
Legal Principles Governing Standing in Australia
Sufficient Interest Requirement: Applicants must show they have a “special interest” or a “genuine concern” beyond that of the general public.
Public Interest Litigation: Courts sometimes relax the standing rules for cases involving important public issues or breaches of constitutional principles.
Statutory Standing: Some legislation explicitly defines who can bring judicial review.
Discretionary Nature: Even where standing exists, courts may exercise discretion in allowing or dismissing applications.
Key Case Law on Standing in Australia
1. Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 (ACF Case)
Facts: The Australian Conservation Foundation sought to challenge government approval of a mining project on environmental grounds.
Holding: The High Court held that the applicant had standing because it had a special interest in environmental issues, distinct from the general public.
Significance: Established that public interest groups can have standing if they demonstrate a genuine concern in the issue, not just a general interest as a citizen.
2. Warrington v. State Planning Authority (1988) 165 CLR 122
Facts: Local residents challenged a planning decision.
Holding: The High Court emphasized that standing requires a direct or special interest, not merely as members of the public.
Significance: Reinforced that mere membership in the public is insufficient; an applicant must be affected in a way that differentiates them from the general community.
3. Gyles v Secretary, Department of Justice (2002) 125 FCR 431
Facts: An individual challenged a government action affecting community resources.
Holding: The Federal Court allowed standing, noting that persons affected by government decisions in ways more than trivial have standing.
Significance: Demonstrated that courts may consider the practical impact on applicants in determining standing.
4. Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179 (UK case often cited in Australia)
Facts: A property owner claimed a right of way was promised but denied by the council.
Holding: The court accepted standing because the applicant was directly affected by the council’s decision.
Significance: Though UK, frequently cited in Australia for the principle that direct personal impact supports standing.
5. Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462
Facts: While primarily about constitutional eligibility, it discussed standing related to constitutional challenges.
Holding: The High Court recognized the importance of public interest standing for constitutional matters.
Significance: Affirmed that courts may grant standing where constitutional questions of public importance arise, even if direct personal impact is limited.
6. Victoria v The Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 81 (Second Uniform Tax Case)
Facts: States challenged the Commonwealth’s tax legislation.
Holding: States were granted standing due to their direct involvement and interest.
Significance: Shows that government entities have clear standing in judicial review and constitutional matters.
7. Re Greenpeace Australia Pacific Ltd [2013] FCA 338
Facts: Greenpeace sought to challenge government environmental approvals.
Holding: The Federal Court accepted Greenpeace’s standing due to its demonstrated environmental focus and specific concerns affected by the decision.
Significance: Illustrates that advocacy organizations with a proven interest can establish standing.
Summary of Standing Principles from Case Law
Standing requires a special or direct interest beyond that of the general public.
Public interest groups and NGOs can gain standing if they demonstrate genuine concern and connection to the issue.
Courts are more flexible with standing in matters involving constitutional or significant public law questions.
Government entities have automatic standing to challenge or defend government actions.
Practical or material impact on the applicant strengthens the case for standing.
Standing decisions balance access to justice with the need to avoid frivolous litigation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments