Who has standing?

scorplett

Where a person breaches the terms laid out in legislation. Who can have standing?

I know there are some instances where it's more clear cut than others, so here is a scenario.

Person A applies for a licence to a government agency which is governed under legislation. The licence is granted on the basis of the terms set out under statute. Person B who may be affected by the granting of the licence wishes to investigate the situation and discovers that person A misrepresented the facts in applying for the licence and therefore the statutory terms for the granting of such licences was breached. This effects person B. Can person B have standing purely on the basis of the breach of legislation that occurred, or does person B have to take a civil case against person A for damages in negligence, breach of personal rights etc?

skyhighflyer

I believe on the fatcs stated that person B could have locus standi on the basis of the breach alone.

Order 84, rule 20(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 states that leave to apply for judicial review will be granted only where the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter.

There have been several cases where individuals were regarded as having locus standi where their personal interests were consequentially prejudiced by decisions targeted at other individuals.

Chambers v. An Bord Pleanala [1992] ILRM 296 - applicants challenged the grant of planning permission for a pharmaceutical plant in Cork. Residents who lived about two miles away from the proposed site were held to have standing even though the object of the decision was directed at Sandoz pharmaceuticals and not the residents themselves.

ESB v. Gormley [1983] IR 129 - similar result reached in the context of planning permission for electricity pylons.

Note however that the Planning and Development and Strategic Infrastructure Acts have upgraded the reauirement for locus standi in matters covered by the acts to 'substantial' as opposed to 'sufficient', so if the hypothetical case comes within the ambit of either of these acts than a higher threshold for standing is applied.

scorplett

Thanks for the reply skyhighflyer. Would you be able to point me to the specific act's mentioned (Planning and Development and Strategic Infrastructure Acts)

The legislation I am looking at is actually the Forestry Act 1946 and amended act of 1988. These outline the procedure for the granting of felling licences for cutting down trees. It states that where construction is intended to be carried out on a felled site, planning permission must accompany the application for a felling licence.
I would look to argue that in the eventuality that planning permission is sought, that it should be refused on the basis that the felling occurred on the premiss that it was not done for the purpose of future construction and that if felling had not taken place that planning permission would not be granted. Now thats a matter of making a case to a council hearing or to An Bord Pleannála.
However, if it were sought to challenge the breach of legislative procedure in itself, considering the matter was between the land owner and relevant government parties granting the licence. I was wondering if neighbouring land owners could have standing in such a matter for the breach of statutory terms.
I would imagine that for civil matters proximity would be easily established whereby the physical nearness would be considered. Would that translate into 'substantial interest' as required for standing under the regulations you mentioned, or would a court look to other matters moreso?

skyhighflyer

Would you be able to point me to the specific act's mentioned (Planning and Development and Strategic Infrastructure Acts)

They'are both available on www.irishstatutebook.ie if you search the titles of the Acts in the search box. I tried to link them but I'm not so hot on this whole linking in posts business


At my first glance these acts don't seem to have amended the Forestry Acts although the hypothetical plaintiff would have to look at them more closely then I have. If they haven't, then the ordinary standard of 'sufficient interest' under Order 84, rule 20(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 will apply.

I would imagine that for civil matters proximity would be easily established whereby the physical nearness would be considered

Before we go further, a distinction needs to be drawn between an action in negligence, which you seem to be suggesting with words like 'proximity' and 'civil matters', and a remedy under administrative law for the decisions of an administrative body, which is what I'm referring to here. Basically, in challenges to decisions of public bodies made pursuant to statute you're going to be talking about public admininstrative law rather than private civil law.

if it were sought to challenge the breach of legislative procedure in itself, considering the matter was between the land owner and relevant government parties granting the licence. I was wondering if neighbouring land owners could have standing in such a matter for the breach of statutory terms

As I see it, they would be able to challenge the breach of statutory procedure itself provided they are able to establish a 'sufficient interest' in the matter. They would be able to do this notwithstanding the fact that, as you say, the matter was one between the land owner and relevant government parties granting the licence. As I pointed out above, it's clear in adminstrative law that someone consequentially affected by a public body decision isn't prevented from challenging that same decision despite the fact that it wasn't directed at them personally.

If the hypothetical plaintiff wanted to challenge the decision itself, the best chance they would have for success would be by means of a judicial review application in the High Court. Decisions can be challenged in this way where
some significant evidence is newly discovered after the hearing so that the decision-maker has not been fully apprised of all of the evidence.

In the present hypothetical, if I understand correctly, this evidence would be the fact that the tribunal was not informed of the concealed intention of the applicant for the felling licence to untertake construction on the land for which the licence was granted.

Bear in mind that all other possible avenues of appeal would have to be exhausted (Coucil hearing, Appeals Panel of ABP, etc) before going down this route.

I would imagine that for civil matters proximity would be easily established whereby the physical nearness would be considered. Would that translate into 'substantial interest' as required for standing under the regulations you mentioned, or would a court look to other matters moreso

The Courts would look at all the relevant factors. Although this is not a civil law action, proximity, if it can be established, will obviously help to raise a sufficient interest. In this regard the circumstances necessary to establish the public law action in this case may overlap with those required for a private law action. Other factors could include financial damage to the applicant, loss of amenity to the neighbouring landowners, environmental considerations, etc. It's really impossible to say what factors might be relevant in establishing a sufficient interest as these will all depend on the particular case.