R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin
regulatory body but regulated against private matters. Datafin were held by the COA to be an integral part of the government framework for the regulation of financial activity. JR could be brought.
R v Chief Rabbi, ex parte Wachmann
religious regulatory bodies are excluded from JR
R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan
sporting regulatory bodies are excluded from JR
R v Jockey Club, ex parte RAM Racecourses
Simon Brown J held 'it is a well settled principle that... merely because some public body is amenable to judicial review it by no mean follows that it is reviewable in all its functions'
Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
private law claims against public bodes can be struck out if not brought within the time limit.
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business Ltd... "Fleet Street Casuals"
a group of freelance journalists had avoided paying tax by completing forms incorrectly. IRC agreed to let them pay it off for two years. federation objected to this. HOL applied test of standing. granted standing. case clarified test of sufficient interest.
ex parte B
a person who is directly or indirectly affected by a decision has standing / sufficient interest.
Liverpool Taxi Fleet
a group who make a claim on the behalf of a specific larger organisation have standing.
R v SoS for the environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co Ltd:
the group was only formed to challenge the decision "since the members of the applicant company had no locus standi as individuals, the company they had created had no standing to apply for judicial review" per Schiemann
R v Sos for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees-Mogg
a peer in the HOL was granted standing as there was no one else who could challenge the decision
R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd
well established expert group.
"It seems to me that if I were to deny standing to Greenpeace those they represent might not have an effective way to bring the issues before the court..." Per Otton
R v Sos for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement
The courts moved towards the rule of law. It is better to grant standing than allow a potentially unlawful decision stand.
HOL held that ouster clauses only apply if a body is acting "within jurisdiction" but any error of law takes a body "outside jurisdiction" and can therefore be reviewed.
R v Lord Chancellor's Department ex parte Hibbit:
JR was sought against the LC's tendering process. the matter could not be reviewed as there was no public law element.