xs
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Social Security Secretary, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 QB 540

Country:
United Kingdom
  • Plaintiff was a pressure group appealing the benefits decision of Defendant based on the fact that questions should have been referred to a more senior officer.

  • CA held that there was standing, though this was without hearing argument on the matter because Defendant tried to say that it wasn’t advancing a defence based on standing.

Woolf LJ

  • Rejected this approach because it goes to the jurisdiction of the court and if the court has to decide to grant Plaintiff relief (not the case here, as it happens, because Plaintiff lost) then it would also have to say that Plaintiff had standing in the first place.

  • NB no reasons given for saying that Plaintiff had standing. 

Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch