Chapter 11 Notes on key cases

• R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617: The House of Lords denied the Federation standing to challenge the decision of the Inland Revenue to overlook some of the tax owed by casual newspaper workers (the ‘Fleet Street casuals’).  The case gives guidance on the meaning of the requirement for standing in Supreme Court Act 1981 s 31(3) , that the claimant should have a ‘sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates’. The claimant in the case was a business Federation that resented tax breaks being given to the workers. In the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning held that the Federation had a sufficient interest because its members had ‘a genuine grievance’ ([1980] QB 407, 425). The House of Lords overruled the decision and held that they did not have standing. But the Law Lords made it clear that the Federation would have had standing to challenge an ‘exceptionally grave or  widespread illegality’ (Lord Fraser, 647). The case illustrates the connection between the merits of a claim, and the interest of a claimant in having it heard (see p 399).
• R v Foreign Secretary, ex p World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386:  The World Development Movement (WDM) sought judicial review of the Foreign Secretary’s refusal to assure them that no further funds would be given to an unsound aid project in Malaysia.  Rose LJ held that the WDM had standing to bring the challenge, and outlined a range of factors (including the prominent role of the WDM in the field of development aid) which contributed to this finding.

 Note: for an outline of the facts on which a claim to standing was based in the main cases, and the decision of the court, see the table on p 408.