Ads
related to: standing and sufficient interest pdf download converter 2 mb to 1thebestpdf.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
pdfguru.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords held by a majority (Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser and Lord Roskill) that the NFSE did not have a sufficient interest in challenging decisions concerning other taxpayers, and nor did taxpayers generally in others affairs, unlike ratepayers (Arsenal FC v Ende [1979] AC 1). The question of sufficient ...
Individual Congressmembers lack the particularized interest required for standing for issues affecting the entire Congress, in this case the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. 7–2 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007
The Court, applying the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. (1981), [1] held that the test for standing was whether the applicant had a sufficient interest in the subject matter, and not whether he or she had a specific legal right.
The applicant must have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. [4]: s. 31(3) This requirement is also known as standing (or “locus standi”). The application must be concerned with a public law matter, i.e. the action must be based on some rule of public law, not purely (for example) tort or contract.
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 High Court held that the WDM had a sufficient interest, and that too much money was spent on the dam. Rose LJ said the following: factors of significance in the present case: the importance of vindicating the rule of law... the importance of the issue raised... the likely absence of any other responsible challenger... the nature of the breach of duty... the prominent role of these ...