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
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Public interest litigants in the Court of Session'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver