## Introduction

Locus standi, often called legal standing, is about who is allowed to bring a case before a court. It is a threshold issue: the court decides whether the claimant is the right person or body to challenge the decision or act in question. This is separate from whether the claim is ultimately right or wrong on the facts or law.

Standing rules aim to conserve court time, prevent purely theoretical disputes, and ensure that those with a real stake are heard. In public law (judicial review), the court asks whether the claimant has a “sufficient interest” in the matter. In private law (such as contract, tort, or property), the claimant normally needs to be the rights‑holder or someone who has suffered direct, personal loss. Some statutes set their own tests, such as the “victim” test under the Human Rights Act 1998.

This guide sets out the core rules, key cases, and practical steps to assess and present locus standi clearly.

## What You’ll Learn

- What locus standi means and why courts consider it first
- How standing differs in public law (judicial review) and private law
- When groups, associations and NGOs can bring claims
- How statutory schemes (e.g., HRA 1998, CRTPA 1999, FOIA 2000) shape standing
- Leading cases: Fleet Street Casuals, World Development Movement, Greenpeace, Donoghue v Stevenson, Hunter v Canary Wharf
- Practical tips to evidence standing and avoid common pitfalls

## Core Concepts

### What Locus Standi Means and Why It Matters

- Definition: Locus standi is the legal capacity to start proceedings. If a claimant lacks standing, the court will not hear the case.
- Purpose: It screens out claims brought by those without a real connection to the decision or conduct complained of. It also helps keep courts focused on concrete disputes.
- Timing: In judicial review, standing is assessed at permission and can be revisited at the final hearing. In private law, standing is part of the cause of action (e.g., being a party to a contract or having suffered damage).
- Not about the merits: Standing does not decide the case, but the strength of the claim can influence whether a court accepts that the claimant has a sufficient interest in public law.

### Public Law Standing: The “Sufficient Interest” Test

- Statutory basis: Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(3) (England and Wales) requires a “sufficient interest” for judicial review.
- Flexible approach: The courts look at:
  - The seriousness and arguability of the alleged illegality
  - The nature of the claimant’s interest (personal, representative, or public interest)
  - Whether another person directly affected is likely or able to challenge
  - The claimant’s participation in the process (e.g., consultation), and the factual nexus
- Organisations and NGOs:
  - May have standing if they represent affected members or bring a well‑focussed challenge where no one else is likely to act and the issue matters for good administration.
- Scotland: The Supreme Court has accepted a broad “sufficient interest” test (AXA; Walton), allowing public interest challengers with a genuine concern and a link to the decision.
- Human Rights Act 1998: Only a “victim” of an unlawful act may bring proceedings under s.7, usually requiring the claimant to show that their own Convention rights are affected.

### Private Law Standing: Rights‑Holder or Direct Loss

- Contract:
  - General rule: Only parties can sue (privity).
  - Exception: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows a third party to enforce a term if the contract expressly provides for this or the term purports to confer a benefit on them (subject to the Act’s conditions).
- Tort (e.g., negligence):
  - The claimant must show duty, breach, and damage. Standing aligns with being the person who suffered the damage.
  - Donoghue v Stevenson established that a consumer without a contract with the manufacturer could sue where harm was foreseeable.
- Property and nuisance:
  - Private nuisance claims usually require a proprietary interest in land (owner or tenant). Mere licensees or family members generally cannot sue (Hunter v Canary Wharf).
- Company/shareholder claims:
  - The company is the proper claimant for loss to the company. Shareholders may use derivative actions under Companies Act 2006, Pt 11, subject to court permission.

### EU and Other Statutory Schemes

- EU annulment actions (Article 263 TFEU):
  - Applicants must show they are directly and individually concerned. This test is strict for NGOs and interest groups (see Greenpeace).
  - National courts can still hear challenges via references, or claimants can pursue domestic public law routes depending on the issue.
- Statutory examples:
  - Freedom of Information Act 2000: any person may request information.
  - Equality Act 2010: standing depends on the cause of action (usually the person affected).
  - Planning: Judicial review remains the route for challenges; standing follows the sufficient interest test.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self‑Employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC 617 (“Fleet Street Casuals”)

- Context: A taxpayer group challenged a tax arrangement. The House of Lords confirmed the “sufficient interest” test is flexible and may be linked to arguability.
- Key point: Standing is not a rigid hurdle. The court considers the gravity of the alleged illegality and the claimant’s connection. On the facts, the group lacked standing.

### R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386

- Context: NGO challenge to funding for the Pergau Dam overseas aid project.
- Key point: The NGO had standing given the seriousness of the legality issue, the public money at stake, the absence of a better‑placed challenger, and the NGO’s focused challenge.
- Application: NGOs can have standing in public law when the claim is well-framed and others are unlikely to sue.

### Case T‑585/93 Greenpeace v Commission [1995] ECR II‑2205

- Context: Environmental NGOs sought to challenge Commission decisions at EU level.
- Key point: The General Court held the applicants were not individually concerned because the impact was widespread and not specific to them.
- Application: EU standing for annulment actions is strict; consider national proceedings or other routes.

### Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

- Context: Consumer illness after drinking ginger beer containing a snail; no contract with the manufacturer.
- Key point: A duty of care can exist independent of contract. Standing in negligence rests on being the person who suffered harm caused by the breach of duty.
- Application: In tort, the claimant’s direct injury usually answers the standing question.

### Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655

- Context: Claims for interference with television reception from a large development.
- Key point: In private nuisance, a claimant generally needs a proprietary interest in the affected land.
- Application: Check title or tenancy before bringing nuisance claims.

## Practical Applications

- Assess standing early
  - Identify the legal route: judicial review, contract, tort, property, human rights, or a statutory claim.
  - Match the test: “sufficient interest” in JR; rights‑holder or direct loss in private law; statutory tests where applicable.
- Strengthen the factual link
  - Set out how the claimant is affected: physical location, membership, financial impact, or rights engaged.
  - For organisations: show member authorisation, constitution objects, and evidence of members affected (with appropriate confidentiality).
  - For JR: explain any participation in consultation and why no better‑placed claimant is available.
- Prepare clear evidence
  - Witness statements covering the claimant’s interest and harm.
  - Documents proving ownership, tenancy, or occupation (for property claims).
  - Membership lists or letters of authority (for group claims), suitably redacted.
  - Medical or financial records where relevant to show direct loss.
- Choose the right claimant
  - If standing is uncertain, consider naming an individual directly affected alongside an association.
  - For contract claims, check whether the 1999 Act allows a third party to sue, or assign the claim if appropriate.
  - For company issues, consider a derivative action rather than a shareholder’s personal claim.
- Consider alternatives
  - Intervene in existing litigation, seek an Ombudsman review, complain to a regulator, or use FOIA to obtain documents before issuing.
  - In EU matters, consider national proceedings with a request for a preliminary reference.
- Anticipate challenges
  - Defendants may argue: no sufficient interest, availability of an alternative remedy, delay, or that the claim is academic.
  - Address each point in the claim form and evidence. In JR, explain compliance with promptness and the three‑month limit.

## Summary Checklist

- Define the cause of action and the forum (JR vs private law vs statute).
- Apply the correct standing test:
  - JR: sufficient interest (SCA 1981 s.31(3)).
  - Contract: privity or CRTPA 1999.
  - Tort: direct damage to the claimant.
  - Nuisance: proprietary interest in land.
  - HRA: claimant is a “victim” (HRA 1998 s.7).
- For organisations: show a clear link to affected members and why the group is a proper claimant.
- Evidence the connection: harm, location, membership, authorisations, and participation history.
- If standing is doubtful, consider adding a directly affected individual or using alternative routes.
- Prepare for a permission‑stage debate on standing in JR; link the seriousness and arguability of the claim to the interest asserted.
- Check time limits and alternative remedies, which often feature in standing objections.

## Quick Reference

| Context                  | Standing Test               | Authority                              | Practical Point                               |
| ------------------------ | --------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- |
| Judicial review (E&W)    | “Sufficient interest”       | SCA 1981 s.31(3); Fleet Street         | Link interest to arguable illegality          |
| Public interest NGO (JR) | Flexible, context‑specific  | World Development Movement             | Show seriousness, focus, no better challenger |
| Scotland (public law)    | Broad sufficient interest   | AXA; Walton                            | Genuine concern plus real link                |
| EU annulment action      | Direct & individual concern | Art 263 TFEU; Greenpeace (cf Plaumann) | Consider national routes or references        |
| Private nuisance         | Proprietary interest        | Hunter v Canary Wharf                  | Prove ownership or tenancy                    |
| Contract claims          | Privity / 3rd party rights  | CRTPA 1999 s.1                         | Check if the term benefits the third party    |


Locus Standi: Definition, Requirements and Key Cases