Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, the United Kingdom courts gradually adopted a single sufficient interest test for all prerogative orders. [13] In R. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte Cook (1969), [14] for example, the High Court used a sufficient interest test to determine whether an applicant had standing to apply for a mandatory order. [15]
Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
Note that legislation can impose shorter time limits while a court may hold that an application made in less than three months may still be not prompt enough. 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 Court cited R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. (1981), [28] in which the House of Lords noted that although the law had formerly required an applicant to show that he or she "has a legal specific right to ask for the interference of the Court" [29] to obtain a mandamus ...
The issue on appeal was separation of the note and mortgage, and whether that affected the plaintiff’s right to foreclose. ... lacked standing to foreclose on the mortgage because it did ...
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:
A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", [1] within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. [2] By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
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 ...