LAWS50032 · Administrative Law
Standing
Standing answers who is entitled to invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction. There is no single test — it turns on the remedy sought. Under the ADJR Act the applicant must be a 'person aggrieved' (s 3(4)): interests adversely affected by the decision, beyond those of an ordinary member of the public (Argos; Right to Life). For the constitutional writs (certiorari, prohibition, mandamus) the applicant needs a sufficient effect on a legal right or interest — reputation can count, and even a 'stranger' may sometimes seek certiorari or prohibition, though the court's discretion tightens (Ainsworth; Hot Holdings). For the equitable remedies (declaration and injunction) the applicant needs a common-law 'special interest' in the subject matter: more than the public's interest in upholding the law and more than a mere emotional or intellectual concern (ACF; Onus; Bateman's Bay; North Coast Environment Council). Standing is step 2 of the Part-A spine (remedies → standing → grounds → consequences) and is expressly examined in the 10% judicial-review quiz over Topics 7–9.
What this chapter covers
- 01Standing is remedy-relative — ask which avenue first
- 02ADJR Act: 'person aggrieved' (s 3(4)) — Argos; Right to Life
- 03Constitutional writs: effect on a legal right or interest — Ainsworth; Hot Holdings
- 04Equitable remedies: the 'special interest' test — ACF; Onus
- 05Bateman's Bay; North Coast Environment Council
- 06The common 2024-style add-on: would standing differ under the ADJR Act vs the Judiciary Act?
Worked example: matching the interest to the test
- +1Standing is remedy-relative: identify the remedies — equitable (declaration/injunction) and statutory (ADJR) — and apply each test separately.
- +1Equitable remedies: the group needs a common-law 'special interest' in the subject matter, beyond the public's interest in legality and beyond mere intellectual or emotional concern (ACF; North Coast Environment Council). A long, demonstrated, organisational involvement in the area can suffice.
- +1ADJR alternative: under the ADJR Act the test is 'person aggrieved' (s 3(4)) — interests adversely affected beyond an ordinary member of the public (Argos; Right to Life).
- +1Conclude: whether standing exists turns on the strength of the group's special interest / aggrievement on the facts; the tests differ, so the answer can differ between the avenues — flag both.
Key terms
- Standing
- The requirement that an applicant have a sufficient interest to invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction. It is remedy-relative: the test depends on the remedy sought, not on a single universal rule.
- Person aggrieved
- The ADJR Act standing test (s 3(4)): a person whose interests are adversely affected by the decision, beyond those of an ordinary member of the public (Argos; Right to Life).
- Special interest
- The common-law standing test for equitable remedies (declaration and injunction): a special interest in the subject matter that is more than the public's interest in upholding the law and more than a mere emotional or intellectual concern (ACF; Onus).
- Standing for the writs
- For certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, the applicant needs a sufficient effect on a legal right or interest (reputation can count). Even a 'stranger' may sometimes seek certiorari or prohibition, but the court's discretion tightens (Ainsworth; Hot Holdings).
- Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (ACF)
- The leading 'special interest' authority: a mere intellectual or emotional concern, however genuine, does not confer standing; something more than the public's interest in seeing the law obeyed is required.
Standing FAQ
Is there one test for standing?
No — standing is remedy-relative. The ADJR Act uses 'person aggrieved' (s 3(4)); the constitutional writs require a sufficient effect on a legal right or interest; the equitable remedies require a common-law 'special interest'. Always identify the remedy first, then apply that remedy's test.
Can a public-interest group have standing?
Sometimes. A mere intellectual or emotional concern, however sincere, is not enough (ACF), but a genuine, demonstrated and substantial connection to the subject matter can amount to a 'special interest' (North Coast Environment Council; Onus). It is a question of degree on the facts.
What is the standing add-on that often appears in the exam?
A 2024-style twist asks whether standing would differ if the application were brought under the ADJR Act rather than the Judiciary Act (the writs). The expected answer states and applies both tests — 'person aggrieved' and the legal-right/special-interest tests — because the answer can diverge between avenues.
Exam move
Treat standing as step 2 of the spine and answer it remedy-by-remedy. Memorise the three tests and a lead case each: ADJR 'person aggrieved' s 3(4) (Argos); writs — effect on a legal right or interest (Ainsworth); equity — 'special interest' (ACF; Onus). Practise the common add-on (ADJR vs Judiciary Act) by writing both tests and applying each to the same facts. Standing is in the 10% quiz, so know it cleanly; in Part A keep it tight — identify the client's interest, match it to the remedies sought, and move on to grounds.
