R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opport...

Facts

• The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) was established to advance equality of opportunity between men and women.
• The EOC challenged employment regulations introduced by the Secretary of State for Employment, which allegedly discriminated against women in part-time employment regarding unfair dismissal rights.
• The case was brought to determine whether the EOC had standing (locus standi) to bring a judicial review challenge against the regulations.

Issues

1. Whether the EOC, as a statutory body, possessed sufficient legal interest (standing) to challenge the disputed employment regulations on the basis of alleged discrimination.
2. Whether organizational standing extends to permit challenges where the organization acts to combat discrimination, even without the direct involvement of affected individuals.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the EOC had sufficient standing to bring the judicial review challenge.
• Their Lordships affirmed that the EOC’s statutory remit and knowledge in employment discrimination established sufficient interest in the subject matter.
• The EOC’s standing was recognized due to its proactive role addressing widespread discrimination and its function extending beyond representation of individual complainants.
• The decision clarified that organizations with statutory duties may hold government accountable for discriminatory practices through judicial review.

Legal Principles

• Standing in judicial review is satisfied where an organization demonstrates a clear connection between its statutory objectives and the challenged decision.
• Organizational standing can be established by statutory remit and relevant knowledge, not solely from representing individual victims.
• The public interest function performed by statutory organizations is a key ground for recognizing standing beyond private or purely representative interests.
• This approach broadens judicial review, permitting organizations to challenge discriminatory administrative decisions as public interest litigants.

Conclusion

The decision in R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] 1 AC 1 (HL) established that organizations with statutory functions and demonstrated competence, such as the EOC, possess standing to challenge potentially discriminatory administrative regulations, thus improving the effectiveness of public interest litigation against discrimination in employment law.