#17448 - Admin Law Remedies Standing In Judicial Review - Administrative Law: Remedies

STANDING IN JUDICIAL REVIEW LEAVE Order 84 Rule 20 (5) of the RSC1986-2011:Leave to apply for judicial review shall not be granted unless the applicant 'has a sufficient interest in the matter.' Won't be granted leave w/out establishing sufficient interest SUFFICIENT INTEREST? • Stress is on interests not rights Narrow sense:A person's interests may be affected when the measure impacts upon a person's physical and material/ immaterial means Broad - public interest/ environmental and NGOSs' standingInterest in the rule of law being upheld and that it is properly observed by the state and public officials Narrower - harder to satisfy the conditions necessary to establish sufficient interest. • Leading authority: Grace and Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala [2017] IESC Concerned a plan to build a wind farm in a Special Protection Area - the designation of which is the protection of natural habitats. The protected habitat in question was one where hen harriers (protected species) had settled. The first applicant was Ms. Grace, who lived less than 1 km away deliberately vacated from Dunlaoghaire and moved to the countryside to escape to unspoilt nature, biodiversity, wildlife and history. The second applicant was Mr. swetman. He was a well-known environmentalist litigant. He lived in Meath a number of km away. His claim to standing was based on the fact he'd a 'sufficient' interest in seeing environmental law properly implemented. - has to satisfy public interest litigation conditionsMs. Grace satisfied the sufficient interest as a personal litigant on the basis of proximity to the premises involved.'persons clearly can have an interest by virtue of proximity to the proposed development' in environmental cases.Degree of proximity required may depend on scale and nature of the development in question Commented [ki1]: •The stress is on interests not rights •The idea of 'interests' can work on two levels: the narrow and broad - because we live in a society under the rule of law, we all have an interest in judicial review proceedings due to their very nature - to protect the public from abuse of power and to ensure compliance with duties. •However, may be directly or narrowly affected if the decision or omission has some effect on a person's individual material or immaterial interests e.g. recreational or environmental interests. Does not have to be tangible to engage a sufficient interest in the narrow sense Court notes in finding she had sufficient interest: o o Lives less than one kilometre from the SPA (Special Protected Area) And relatively close to the site of the proposed development She chose to purchase a house in the area because of its unspoilt nature, rich biodiversity, wildlife, and history. Sweetman:Spatial proximity not present and his material/ personal interests not affected by the wind farm - thus, does not have personal standing PUBLIC INTEREST STANDING • Interest everyone has in seeing law is properly maintained and illegality is corrected. THE CONDITIONS: SPUC v Coogan [1989] IR 215 Ps sought to prevent the publication of the UCD student's union Welfare Guide 1988/9 because it contained information on abortion facilities. The injunction was on the grounds that this information endangered the right to life of the unborn child contrary to the 8th amendment. The student leaders - some of whom represented themselves in HC - argued that P was not directly affected by their actions and thus did not have locus standing or 'sufficient interest'. HC agreed and said SPUC was a 'self-appointed intervener' SC:There is a standing other than individual: public interest standing:'every member of the public has an interest in seeing that the fundamental law of the state is not defeated.' 1. The issue raised must be of exceptional public importance or involve a significant default of legality 2. The challenger must be acting bona fide'the test is that of a bonda fide concern and interest, interest being used in the sense of proximity or an objective interest. 3. There must be no better challenger or plaintiff to take the caseThe corollary of which is that the person in the best position to take the case cannot.'to ascertain whether such bona fide concern and interest exists in a particular case it is of special importance to consider the nature of the constitutional right sought to be protected. In this case that right is the right to life of an unborn child in its mother's womb. In respect of such a threat there can never be a victim or potential victim who can sue.' If the person cannot sue to protect a constitutional right, a plaintiff with proximity to the unable applicant has a bona fide interest 1. BONA FIDES INTEREST • • • Sustained and urgent interest in the controversy at and is a good marker of bona fides Conversely, if the P hasn't bothered participating in earlier stages of the decision-making process, the depth of their commitment comes into question. Public interest litigants can expect to undergo a searching enquiry as to its sincerity and history of involvement in the issue Lancefort v An Bord Pleanala [1999] 2 IR 270 ABP granted planning permission to Treasury Holdings for the demolition of a celebrated Victorian building - the Scottish Widows building. The applicants - Lancefort - was formed as an environmental pressure group for the purpose of challenging the granting of the PP. There'd been public consultation and an appeal but the applicant had shown no interest or involvement in these earlier stages.There's a link between bona fides interest and early intervention in the challenging process.Prior participation evidence of bona fides applicantLack of prior participation on the part of Lancefort undermined claim that A was genuinely interestedHC may pierce the corporate veil of a company which purports to be a public interest litigant in order to survey whether it actual history supports its claim Grace and Sweetman Didn't reach the standard for personal standing, so public interest standing argued:In the case of planning processes, there are facilities specifically for participation and objection prior to the final decision.The fact Sweetman had not participated in the process nor did he provide good reasoning as to why, was detrimental to him satisfying the first criterion Especially because he was a serial environmental litigator