In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:
The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose. The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions for which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is grounds for asking for a law to be struck down for violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because, even though the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might adversely affect others, because they might not know when they were violating it. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so.
In the United States, a person may not bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit and will dismiss it without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.
International courts The Council of Europe created the first international court before which individuals have automatic locus standi.Smith, Rhona K. M., Textbook on International Human Rights. 4th Edition. 2010.
Australia Australia has a common law understanding of locus standi or standing which is expressed in statutes such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and common law decisions of the High Court of Australia especially the case Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980).. At common law, the test for standing is whether the plaintiff has a "special interest in the subject matter of the action". Under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to have standing the applicant must be "a person who is aggrieved",. defined as "a person whose interests are adversely affected" by the decision or conduct complained of.(4). This has generally been interpreted in accordance with the common law test..
There is no open standing, Standing in public interest cases, Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Incorporated unless statute allows it,. or represents needs of a specified class of people.Justice Brian J Preston, Standing to Sue at Common Law in Australia .. The issue is one of remoteness..see ..
Standing may apply to class of aggrieved people, where essentially the closeness of the plaintiff to the subject matter is the test.See also Ogle v Strickland (1986) 13 FCR 306, Federal Court (Australia). Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that he or she has been specially affected in comparison with the public at large.
Also, while there is no open standing per se, prerogative writs like certiorari,re Smith; Ex parte Rundle (1991) 6 WAR 295, Supreme Court (WA, Australia). writ of prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus. have a low burden in establishing standing. Australian courts also recognise amicus curiae (friend of the court),. and the various Attorneys General have a presumed standing in administrative law cases.
Canada In Canadian administrative law, whether an individual has standing to bring an application for judicial review, or an appeal from the decision of a tribunal, is governed by the language of the particular statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for a narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing.For example, under s. 18(1) the Federal Court Act, an application for review may be made by "anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which the relief is sought".
Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional.
Public interest standing The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy": Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada,Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, 1 S.C.R. 138. Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil,Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, 2 S.C.R. 265. and Minister of Justice v. Borowski.Minister of Justice v. Borowski, 2 S.C.R. 575. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1 S.C.R. 236
Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance).Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2 S.C.R. 607 .
Nigeria Like in other jurisdictions, the right to approach a court is contained in the Constitution.section 6(6)B of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended The right to approach a court has been interpreted in several cases, this has led to the right to be view differently in different cases. In recent times, there have been different approaches to locus standi. They are:
Traditional approach — only the party who has suffered pecuniary damage or special damage can seek redress in a court of law.Abraham Adesanya v. President (1981) Law Pavilion Electronic Law Report -44501 In the case of Airtel Networks Ltd. v. George(2015) 4 NIGERIAN WEEKLY LAW REPORT -NWLR- page 60 it was held that "a party is said to have locus if he has shown sufficient interest in the action and that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being infringed". Under this approach, a party can only seek redress provided he has proved to the satisfaction of the court that he has suffered sufficient damage over and above any other persons in the concern action.Jukok Int'l Ltd. v. Diamond Bank PLC (2016) NWLR Particularly, only the Attorney General can seek redress in any case on public affairs except the party is authorised through fiat emanates from the Attorney General. Liberal approach — a departure or exception to the traditional approach. Locus standi may be granted to any person who challenges any unconstitutionality provided the person is subject to the constitution.Fawehinmi v. President (2007) 14 NWLR 275 This expands locus standi on constitutional issues. Justice Aboki of the Court of Appeal said "the requirement of (strict) locus standi become unnecessary in constitutional issues as it will merely impede judicial function". Likewise, any person can challenge infringement of fundamental human rights.Fawehinmi v. Akilu no. 2 (1989) NWLR
United Kingdom In England and Wales, an applicant for judicial review needs to have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3). This sufficient interest requirement has been construed liberally by the courts. As Lord Diplock put it:Inland Revenue Commissioners Appellants v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. Respondents A.C. 617.
In the law of contract, the doctrine of privity means that only those who are party to a contract can sue or be sued upon it.Tweddle v Atkinson, Dunlop v Selfridge, Beswick v Beswick This doctrine was substantially amended by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which allows third parties specified in a contract to enforce it provided the contract expressly grants them the right to do so.
Almost all criminal prosecutions are brought by the state via the Crown Prosecution Service, so private prosecutions are rare. A famous exception was the case of Whitehouse v Lemon where Mrs Mary Whitehouse, a self-appointed guardian of suburban morality, was permitted to bring a private prosecution for blasphemous libel (an offence still in existence until 2008) against the publisher of Gay News, Denis Lemon. Victims of crime have standing to sue the perpetrator and they may claim criminal injuries compensation from the state. If the state fails properly to bring a case, the victim or his family may have standing to bring a private prosecution, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence.
United States
In United States law, the Supreme Court has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues."Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, John Rutledge, the second Chief Justice of the United States, was largely responsible for denying the Supreme Court the right to give advisory opinions. Being a judge himself, he strongly believed that a judge's sole purpose was to resolve legal conflicts; he held that judges should hand down an opinion only when they rule on an actual case.Haw, James: John & Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, P. 8 (1997)
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl. 1, which provides, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... [and] Controversies". The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary; Article III standing is an aspect of separation of powers..
Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity". The Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be "mature for judicial resolution" or ripe, and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.
The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon (1923).. However, legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes (1922) which was authored by Justice Louis Brandeis.. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. The Supreme Court decision was that he lacked the standing to do so. Prior to this, the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine of standing has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.