Standing in tribunal proceedings
I. Introduction to Standing (Locus Standi)
"Standing" or locus standi refers to the legal capacity of a person to bring an action or appear in a tribunal or court. In tribunal proceedings, especially in administrative or quasi-judicial settings, standing determines who can participate, who can appeal, and whose rights are sufficiently affected to warrant a hearing.
In general terms, a person must demonstrate:
A sufficient interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.
That their rights, duties, or legitimate expectations are adversely affected by the decision.
That the issue is not merely academic, but real and substantial.
Tribunals are often more flexible than courts when it comes to standing, particularly where public interest or access to justice is concerned.
II. Categories of Persons Who May Have Standing
Directly affected parties (e.g., a licensee, applicant, or objector)
Persons with statutory rights of appeal or objection
Associations or groups representing affected individuals
Public interest litigants (in some cases)
III. Case Law – Detailed Explanation
Let’s go through five leading cases that have shaped the law of standing in tribunal proceedings.
1. A.G. of Gambia v. N'Jie [1961] AC 617 (Privy Council)
Facts:
The applicant challenged the decision of the Governor to suspend his membership in the Legislative Council. He sought judicial review.
Issue:
Did he have standing to challenge the Governor’s decision?
Held:
The Privy Council held that a person has standing where he can show that a legal right has been infringed or that he has a sufficient interest.
Significance:
This case is important because it recognized that sufficient interest can arise from political or administrative decisions that directly affect a person's legal status or role.
It laid the foundation for a broader and more liberal interpretation of standing.
2. R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
Facts:
The Federation challenged a tax arrangement made by the Revenue with newspaper casual workers, claiming it was unlawful.
Issue:
Did the Federation have sufficient interest in the matter to challenge the decision?
Held:
The House of Lords held that they did not have standing. Lord Diplock emphasized that “sufficient interest” is a threshold question and must be judged in context.
Significance:
Introduced the idea that standing and merits can sometimes overlap.
Clarified that not every citizen or taxpayer has standing to challenge public decisions unless they are personally or directly affected.
3. R v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 QB 504
Facts:
A group formed to protect a historic theatre sought judicial review of a planning decision.
Issue:
Did the group have standing?
Held:
The Court ruled that the group did not have standing, because it was formed solely to bring the legal action, and had no independent legal interest.
Significance:
Reinforced that interest must be more than a general public concern.
A company or body formed purely to litigate will not necessarily have standing unless it represents those with a personal legal interest.
4. R v. HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
Facts:
Greenpeace sought judicial review of a nuclear discharge license granted by the government. The site affected a community where Greenpeace had many supporters.
Issue:
Did Greenpeace have standing?
Held:
Yes. The court recognized that Greenpeace was a responsible and informed body, representing individuals directly affected by the decision.
Significance:
A landmark case expanding the public interest standing.
Emphasized factors such as expertise, track record, and ability to assist the court.
Recognition that it would be impractical for individual residents to bring proceedings on their own.
5. Walton v. Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44
Facts:
Mr. Walton, an environmental campaigner, challenged a road development plan.
Issue:
Could a person who is not personally affected (in terms of property or economic loss) but who represents public interest have standing?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that individuals who represent the public interest can have standing even if they are not directly affected.
Significance:
Lord Reed stated that courts should not adopt an overly restrictive approach to standing, especially in public law matters.
Strong support for participatory democracy and environmental justice.
IV. Key Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Sufficient Interest Test | A claimant must have more than a theoretical interest | National Federation |
| Personal vs Public Interest | Courts favor personal over general public interest unless justified | Rose Theatre Trust |
| Representative Standing | NGOs can act on behalf of affected individuals | Greenpeace |
| Liberal Approach in Public Law | Especially in environmental and constitutional matters | Walton v Scottish Ministers |
| Not All Associations Qualify | Groups formed just for litigation may be denied standing | Rose Theatre Trust |
V. Application in Tribunal Proceedings
In tribunal settings, the question of standing is often guided by:
Statutory provisions (who may appeal or be heard),
The nature of the tribunal (disciplinary, regulatory, etc.),
And the impact on the person’s legal rights or interests.
Tribunals may allow broader participation than courts, particularly in:
Planning appeals,
Professional disciplinary tribunals,
Environmental and licensing tribunals.
VI. Conclusion
Standing is a crucial threshold issue in tribunal and judicial proceedings. Courts and tribunals balance access to justice with preventing abuse of process. While earlier cases emphasized direct and personal interest, later decisions like Greenpeace and Walton show a trend towards inclusive and liberal approaches, especially in matters of public interest or environmental protection.
Understanding these cases helps determine when and how individuals, groups, or associations may rightfully participate in tribunal proceedings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments