Government still on the standing warpath

20 July 2014 by

706x410q70fdb2ae613e49ab38bae8e09d0a46a228O (R o.t.a) v. Secretary of State for International Development [2014] EWHC 2371 (QB) 14 July 2014  read judgment

One proposal of the Lord Chancellor on reforming judicial review last year was the narrowing of the tests for standing, namely the ability to come to court and complain about some public law unlawfulness: see, e.g. here. The idea of statutory reform of standing was later shelved, but the current case is an interesting example of the Government probing the boundaries of the tests laid down by the courts.

The underlying dispute concerns the funding of international aid to Ethiopia by DFID. Mr O is an Ethiopian citizen who says he was the victim of human rights abuses in the course of a programme to re-settle villagers in new and larger communes – this programme (the Commune Development Programme or CDP) is said to involve forced internal relocation. As a result, O fled to Kenya, leaving his family behind. There is evidence of widespread human rights abuses perpetrated in this process of “villagisation”.

O’s case is that UK aid helps to fund villagisation. He says that the UK government has failed properly to apply its own policies on seeking to link aid and respect for human rights, by not having a sufficient process for assessing Ethiopia’s compliance and by not making its assessment transparent.

Warby J decided that there was an arguable case on the first issue, but not on the second. So the judicial review will go to a full hearing.

But the point of particular interest is that DFID decided to instruct the most senior barrister acting for the Government to oppose the granting of permission for this hearing. Why? Well, I suppose the idea of a foreign resident suing the UK Government is not the flavour of the month in Whitehall at the moment: see this week’s posts here and here. But I think it is more likely that Government thought it would have a go at pushing back on the standing rules.


The underlying test for allowing someone to bring a judicial review case is whether they have a “sufficient interest” in the case.  This involves excluding claimant who are  “mere busybodies” but it is otherwise a liberal and inclusive test. Critically, and when the circumstances justify it, the court has been ready to recognise standing on the part of persons and NGOs who cannot demonstrate that they are directly and individually affected by an administrative measure, such as NGOs.

The current law is laid down by two recent Scottish cases in the Supreme Court  AXA [2011] UKSC 46, (see my post here)  and Walton [2012] UKSC 44 (see my post here). It was common ground that these Scottish cases gave authoritative guidance on English law.  AXA stressed the fact that judicial review was not simply about redressing individual grievances, and to rule otherwise ignored its constitutional function of maintaining the rule of law. And as Lord Reed pointed out in Walton at [170] whilst not every member of the public can complain of every potential breach of duty by a public body, there may be cases in which

any individual, simply as a citizen, will have sufficient interest to bring a public authority’s violation of the law to the attention of the court, without having to demonstrate any greater impact upon himself than upon other members of the public. The rule of law would not be maintained if, because everyone was equally affected by an unlawful act, no-one was able to bring proceedings to challenge it.

The Government sought to argue a slightly more restricted line based upon other case law, from lower courts (see [20]); O had to show either (1) that he had himself been “affected in some identifiable way” by the decisions under challenge, or (2) that the claim involved issues of real and significant public interest which would not otherwise be raised, such that adherence to the rule of law required that the challenge be allowed to proceed.

Hence it argued that O could not satisfy (1) because there was an inadequate foundation for a link between O’s experiences and DFID’s decision-making. As for (2), there were plenty of other mechanisms by which DFID could be held to be accountable  other than by judicial review.

Warby J was unpersuaded by the Government’s attempts to gloss AXA and Walton. Whilst the policies under challenge post-dated O’s own experiences, the judge took a broader view. O was entitled to say that he remains affected, as someone who remains ousted from his ancestral land and a refugee from his home country. Further, he can say that he is a family member with relatives from whom he has been and remains separated as a result of the way the CDP has been implemented, with those relatives remaining somewhere in Ethiopia. That was not enough to by itself to amount to a sufficient interest. O, in the judge’s view had also shown a sufficient likely linkage between the provision of UK aid and the CDP, not only in relation to the past but also in relation to the present and future.  The CDP may have been at least indirectly funded via UK contributions.

Hence, it was reasonable for O to contend that DFID’s approach to the assessment of Ethiopia’s human rights record, and hence to the disbursement of aid, may have had a causal impact on the implementation of the CDP in the past, and that the same is likely to be true as regards current and future disbursements.


The impact, or prospective impact on the Claimant and his family could be described as indirect but it is not remote. In those circumstances it is not fanciful but fair to say that the Claimant is affected by or has a reasonable concern in the Defendant’s present and future policy and practice with regard to the assessment of Ethiopia’s human rights record. That, in my judgment is enough to satisfy the requirement of a sufficient interest.


It is a tad ironic that this unsuccessful attempt to batten down the hatches on standing should come in an overseas aid case. Another one, the World Development Movement case (funding for a Malaysian dam), 20 years ago, is now seen as a turning point in the courts’ current relaxed approach to standing. But I am confident that, with the current scepticism in Government about judicial review, we are going to see repeated attempts to tighten up standing rules, with, in due course, such cases reaching the higher courts. That said, one might have thought that the recent AXA and Walton cases would make significant shifts in the approach unlikely.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: