100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Administrative Law - Standing Summary $10.72   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Administrative Law

Summary

Administrative Law - Standing Summary
 9 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Administrative Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on standing in Administrative Law cases. This document covers in detail the context sensitivity of standing determinations, specifically in relation to parole board cases, environmental law cases, and representative standing, and the relevance/irrelevance of motive.

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 6, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • administrative law
  • standing
  • warboys case
  • mccourt v parole board
  • fleet street casuals
  • rose theatre
  • greenpeace
  • walton v scottish ministers
  • world development movement

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Administrative Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Standing:
Reason for standing = don’t want frivolous claims.
Surely requirement of arguability is better than standing for this – should be where attention
is.

s.31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 – “sufficient interest in the matter to which their application relates”.
Law Commission recommendation = unification of standing requirement, instead of having 5
different standing requirements for different remedies.
Why?
Was under no illusion that this was a clear test that would resolve all matters, rather
argued that language of “sufficient interest” gave courts enough discretion to work
out a coherent approach to standing.
Didn’t envisage a general test – very open to possibility that what would be sufficient
in one area wouldn’t be sufficient in another.

Context Sensitivity:
- This is not surprising and is welcome.
o JR case law is very varied – safety net.
 JR there for people who have no other legal route for challenging decision.
 Because of this, deal with very varied plethora of cases – very varied case
law because filling the gaps.
o Would be surprising if could develop approach that captures all – random what comes
to JR and what to tribunals.
 Little systematic oversight of tribunals, especially in which cases should go
to tribunals and which go to JR, depends on particular legislative framework
and rights of appeal.
 E.g., a lot of immigration cases go through tribunals – BUT – still no right to
appeal against a decision to detain a person in an immigration centre, have to
go to JR.
- Parole Board:
o R (DSD) v Parole Board (Warboys case) – taxi-cab rapist.
 Argued that parole board hadn’t considered that there were other victims for
which he hadn’t been prosecuted.
 Courts happy to assume that victims of his crimes have standing but the
Mayor of London did not.
o R (McCourt) v Parole Board – release of convicted murderer who continued to refuse
to disclose location of victim’s body – case brought by mother of victim and a
number of MPs promoting a law regarding release of prisoners who refuse to disclose
location of victims’ bodies.
 Court holds that family members had standing but MPs did not.
 Attempt to pinpoint approach to standing – standing will be limited to the
Secretary of State who can represent public interest, victims, and family
members of deceased victims.
 Far from open system of standing – parole board is shaping what deemed to
be sufficient interest.
o Why the narrow approach?
 Concern on impact on prisoners – if anyone can seek JR of these decisions,
prisoners who are told they can be released are then left in prison for longer
periods while this is reviewed – information about them will be put before the
court and the public without their consent.
 The MPs were promoting a Bill before Parliament – trying to draw attention
to Bill by bringing claim.
 Why not allowed in McCourt – parole release can be very political.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.72. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

59325 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.72
  • (0)
  Add to cart