R v Foreign Secretary, [1995] 1 WLR 386

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Rivers United, a not-for-profit environmental association, recently discovered that the Department for Agricultural Resources approved a large-scale reservoir project. Local communities in the affected region reportedly received no prior consultation or environmental assessment details. Despite having no direct economic stake in the outcome, Rivers United is deeply concerned about the potential harm to local ecosystems. Believing the Department’s approval failed to comply with mandatory environmental regulations, they file a judicial review claim. The Department responds that Rivers United lacks a sufficient interest to challenge its decision, given the group does not reside in or own property in the project area.


Which of the following best supports a finding that Rivers United has standing to bring a judicial review claim in these circumstances?

Introduction

Locus standi, or standing, is the legal right of a party to start a claim in court. Traditionally, English administrative law used a strict approach for standing, requiring a claimant to show a strong personal interest affected by the disputed administrative action. However, R v Foreign Secretary, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386 changed this significantly. This High Court judgment set a more open way to view standing in cases involving large public law concerns, making it easier to obtain judicial review. The case was about the legality of funding for the Pergau Dam project in Malaysia by the Foreign Secretary, challenging the usual requirement for an individual to show direct personal loss. This judgment showed the importance of ensuring government actions are accountable, especially when basic principles of legality and proper use of public funds are questioned.

The Facts of R v Foreign Secretary

The case arose from a challenge to the UK government's decision to provide financial aid for the Pergau Dam in Malaysia. The World Development Movement Ltd (WDM), a non-governmental group focused on development issues, argued that the Foreign Secretary's decision was illegal because the aid was financially poor and linked to an arms deal, against the Overseas Development and Cooperation Act 1980. The main issue before the court was whether WDM had sufficient standing to bring the claim.

The Traditional Approach to Standing

Before WDM, the usual approach for standing required a claimant to show a "strong interest" in the issue. This often meant showing a direct personal interest affected by the administrative action. Cases involving financial interests, property rights, or direct impact on an individual's job easily met this standard. But, challenges to government decisions based on larger public interest concerns faced large obstacles. This strict approach often left important legal and policy issues without proper ways for court review.

The Open Approach to Standing in WDM

The High Court in WDM recognized the importance of public interest lawsuits. Rose LJ, delivering the main judgment, noted the need for a less strict way to view standing in cases involving large public concerns. He considered WDM's work and concern for the right use of public funds, and the lack of any other suitable challenger. These points, along with the serious claims against the government, convinced the court to grant WDM standing. This decision showed a change from the usual focus on direct personal interest and allowed public interest groups to challenge government actions in court.

The Importance of WDM for Public Interest Litigation

The WDM judgment is a key case in administrative law. It made it easier to obtain judicial review by recognizing the value of public interest lawsuits. The case showed that standing could be granted to groups representing public interests, even without showing direct personal loss. This open approach ensures there is more accountability for government actions, especially in areas where the public interest is involved. The decision also recognized the role of NGOs like WDM in checking the government, allowing civil groups to act as protectors of the public interest.

Later Developments and Uses of WDM

The open approach to standing from WDM has been used and developed in later cases. For example, in Corner House Research v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, the House of Lords agreed on the importance of considering the case's value when deciding standing. This supports the WDM idea that when serious public issues are raised, courts should not be too strict in granting standing. The influence of WDM is also seen in cases about environmental protection, human rights, and other areas of public law, showing its lasting impact on judicial review.

Conclusion

R v Foreign Secretary, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386 is a key moment in administrative law. The judgment's open approach to locus standi, based on the value of public interest lawsuits, has made it easier to obtain judicial review. By allowing groups like WDM to challenge government actions, even without direct personal loss, the case makes it easier to hold public bodies accountable. This idea, further supported and developed in later cases like Corner House Research, shows the key role of courts in protecting the public interest and ensuring government decisions are legal. The case clearly shows that access to justice should not be limited to those with direct personal interests when large public concerns are involved. The judgment’s impact continues to shape administrative law, showing the importance of judicial review in a democratic society.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal