header-logo header-logo

Making a stand

14 July 2017 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7754 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Should councillors have standing to challenge a procurement decision of their authority? Nicholas Dobson traces the arguments on both sides

  • Councillors had no standing to challenge a procurement decision of their authority since: (i) they could not establish that a competitive tendering exercise would produce a different outcome and; (ii) they were unable to establish any direct impact upon them which would arise from such an exercise.

For many people standing will mean only how they must endure their twice daily rail commute. But for lawyers the term (known in less demotic times as locus standi ) refers to the fact that to apply for judicial review, prospective claimants must satisfy the court that they have ‘sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates’ (s 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981).

So would local authority councillors wishing to challenge a procurement decision in their authority have standing? Surprisingly (in the view of many), no. Such was the decision of Dove J on 9 March 2017 in Wylde and others v Waverley

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll