Abstract
When Lords Hope and Reed reformed the law of standing in AXA General Insurance v Lord Advocate 1 they grounded that change firmly in constitutional principle. To restrict standing to those for whom a private right or interest is at stake was, in Lord Reed’s view, “incompatible with the courts’ function of preserving the rule of law,” precisely because “[a] public authority can violate the rule of law without infringing the rights of any individual.” 2 Thus, their Lordships agreed that (in public law judicial review cases at least) the time had come to consign the title and interest test to the dustbin.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 248-253 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Edinburgh Law Review |
Volume | 19 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - May 2015 |
Keywords
- court of session
- individual rights
- public interest