Word Count: 1472

One of the most prominent aspects of administrative law is access to judicial

review. Judicial review refers to the means and processes through which the
Administrative Court can evaluate and scrutinise decisions or actions of public bodies,
having the power to provide remedies where such actions or decisions have been taken
illegally, unreasonably, or without due regard to the necessary procedures. In other
words, it is a mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the executive and is
ultimately used as a safeguard against the misuse of delegated powers. However,
judicial review is not available to everyone, and there are several measures put in place
to prevent courts and public bodies from being overwhelmed by irresponsible
applications. For a case to be brought to court, an applicant must have a sufficient
interest, otherwise known as ‘standing’. To properly advise the “Mates of Mo Trust”,
Abbey, the Church of Homer, and Ned on whether they meet the formal requirements
and prerequisites to bring an application for judicial review against the Springfield
Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee, it will be important to begin by analysing
the grounds for judicial review.

For a decision to be amenable to judicial review, it must be made by a public

body and under delegated powers, and even when the relevant decision is amenable to
judicial review, not everyone nor every organization can make an application. In
bringing an action, one must satisfy the court of two elements: (1) the existence of a
prima facie case, and (2) that the claimant has locus standi. Additionally, an action must
be brought on one or more ‘grounds’, as set out by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil
Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service.1 There are three grounds on which an
action may be brought; illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Regarding the
decision made by the Springfield Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee, the
tendency to favour sites that have some connection to members of the Committee falls
under procedural impropriety. For the courts to regard an applicant in judicial review
proceedings as having standing, they must apply the sufficient interest test as set out in

1
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the ‘GCHQ case’) [1985] AC 374 (HL).

1
section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which states that the court will not grant
standing unless “it considers that the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter to
which the application relates.”2 Additionally, part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules further
outlines the legal process of judicial review and highlights the qualifications for locus
standi. Lord Diplock argues that denying individuals access to judicial review because of
some technical rules regarding standing is contrary to the rule of law.3 However, courts
today have adopted a more liberal approach in the preservation of the rule of law in
comparison to earlier cases. This was further confirmed by Rose LJ in R v Secretary of
State for the Home Department, stating that it has gradually become easier for
individuals to hold decision-makers accountable.4

The collective action of the “Mates of Mo Trust” concerns the question of whether
collective action can increase the likelihood of a sufficient interest being accepted. This
matter was first considered in the IRC case. Here, the House of Lords found that “an
aggregate of individuals each of whom has no interest cannot of itself have an interest.” 5
Based on the judgement in IRC, the courts will always consider the sufficient test and a
rise in numbers will not necessarily increase the chances of that test being satisfied.
This was later confirmed by Schiemann J during the Rose Theatre case where he held
that “[since] no individual has the standing to move for judicial review it follows ... that
the company created by those individuals has no standing.”6 As illustrated throughout
various case law, the general view is that there is no such thing as cumulative standing
and courts assess groups of people individually, not collectively. Similar to the Rose
Theatre case, it is likely that the “Mates of Mo Trust” will not be granted standing, as the
formation of a group where no individual will be able to show any personal interest in
respect of the historic site would do nothing to increase the possibility of any such
interest.

2
Senior Courts Act 1981, Section 31(3).
3
R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC
617 (HL).
4
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [2001] 1 AC 410.
5
R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC
617 (HL).
6
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504.

2
 The time limit within which judicial review applications can be brought is three
months and without undue delay.7 However, it remains within the discretion of the court
whether to allow an application to proceed. If an application is made within three months
but the applicant is regarded as having acted with undue delay, courts have the power
to prevent the application from going further. Equally, courts have the power to permit
an application made after three months if they feel it would be appropriate. Likely,
Abbey will not be granted standing for her application on the basis that she has
exceeded the strict three-month time limit in which judicial review proceedings must be
brought. Despite the court’s ability to exercise a degree of discretion on this point, they
would be unlikely to permit Abbey’s application to proceed.

Despite the decision in Rose Theatre which held that no ordinary member of the
public has any locus standi to challenge a decision, standing could potentially be
granted to the Church of Homer. This is a nationwide group to which several churches
in the area are linked and who could therefore be held to have an interest in challenging
the policy due to their members being directly affected by its implementation. Regarding
the Church of Homer, we can refer to the case of Greenpeace. It was held that,
although Greenpeace was not directly affected by the policy, the fact that it was an
internationally recognised organisation, with access to resources and expertise, meant
that it was much better equipped to bring an action than the actual residents affected by
the policy. Here, Otton J held that “if I were to deny standing to Greenpeace, those it
represents might not have an effective way to bring the issues before the court.”8 The
parallel with this authority is founded on the fact that, just as Greenpeace was held to
have standing due to its well-established reputation, and the fact that so many residents
were members, the proposed application by the Church of Homer is likewise brought by
a well-established body which represents a significant number of churches affected by
the council’s policy. Since the churches will be directly affected by the implementation of
this policy, the test of standing applied by the courts may be more easily satisfied here.

7
Civil Procedure Rules, Part 54.5(1).
8
R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329 (QBD).

3
 On the question of standing, Ned cannot be said to be directly affected by the
council’s policy, at least to the same degree as Mo, Abbey, or Tim. However, given the
courts’ liberal approach to standing, it is not entirely inconceivable that they might find a
sufficient interest based on Ned’s association with the town through his professional
academic writing. Similar to the Rees-Mogg case, Ned may be deemed to have a
sufficient interest to bring an application for judicial review simply by virtue of his
extensive interest in the town’s history. Here, the court felt that “if Lord Rees-Mogg did
not have standing then no one did.”9 However, if the court decides to apply DSD and
NBV, standing may not be granted on the basis that there are other applicants better
placed to bring the claim.10

The question of standing has been discussed at length over the years, with
courts considering a range of factors and issues in determining whether applicants
should be deemed to have a sufficient interest to make an application. As illustrated
within this scenario, cases involving individuals, groups of individuals, and interest
groups have all presented differing issues. However, the overriding approach employed
by the courts appears to be a liberal one. Judges tend to go beyond simply asking
whether the applicant has a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter, and instead have placed
emphasis on the merits of the case along with the importance of protecting the rule of
law.

Bibliography

9
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552.
10
R (DSD and NBV and others) v The Parole Board and others [2018] EWHC 694.

4
Cases
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the ‘GCHQ case’) [1985]
AC 374 (HL)
R (DSD and NBV and others) v The Parole Board and others [2018] EWHC 694
R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace (No. 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
(QBD)
R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation of Self-employed and Small
Businesses [1982] AC 617 (HL)
R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Hindley [2001] 1 AC 410
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1
QB 504

Statutes
Civil Procedure Rules
Senior Courts Act 1981

Feedback
Grade: 65/100

5
Strengths
Answer shows a capable knowledge of the processes and preliminary rules of a JR
claim. Some effective use made of case law at times - esp. application
of Greenpeace to the Church of Homer.

Areas to improve
The structure generally could be more effective: e.g. setting out the law generally first,
all at once, before then applying it, is not the clearest way of doing it. It would be more
effective to pick out the issue, set out the relevant law on that issue, apply, and then
move on to the next (doing this for each of amenability; standing; time limits etc). This
would help you make a better use of the knowledge you have and make the answer
easier to follow.

See annotations for further comments.