Standing in Judicial Review

Introduction

·        Standing – determines who may invoke judicial review.

·        Traditionally restrictive, now liberalised, especially in Scotland.

·        Modern law reflects a public interest vision of JR, though concerns remain about politicisation.

Traditional Approach

·        England: ‘Sufficient Interest’ (Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31)

·        Historically narrow – focused on personal rights.

o   Fleet Street Casuals

o   Pressure group denied standing; court wary of ‘busybodies’.

o   Demonstrates concern about judicial overreach.

·        Vision – private law model, individual grievance.

Scottish shift: AXA v LA

·        AXA 2011 fundamentally reshaped Scottish standing.

·        Court rejected strict title & interest.

·        Test: ‘Sufficient interest’ interpreted generously where constitutional issues arise.

o   Key reasoning:

o   JR protects the rule of law, not private rights alone.

o   If unlawful action goes unchallenged, constitutional harm occurs.

·        Vision: JR as a constitutional safeguard.

Walton v Scottish Ministers

·        Environment NGO challenge.

·        Supreme Court held:

o   Standing should not be a ‘technical obstacle’

o   Courts should ask whether litigation is genuine and responsible.

·        Importance:

o   Confirms public interest litigation legitimacy.

o   Reinforces AXA’s constitutional model.

Criticism: Politicisation?

·        Critics argue expanded standing:

o   Encourages political litigation.

o   Risks courts entering policy disputes.

·        However:

o   Courts still retain discretion.

o   Standing is not equal to success on merits.

Conclusion

·        Modern standing reflects a constitutional vision of JR.

·        AXA and Walton strengthen rule of law, not politicisation.