The adjoining property holder and standing:
•    The property holded alleged that the logging would increase the frequency of damaging floods and fires and would silt up the river. Trucks have caused damage to the ajoining road, have caused damage to his windscreen and cause noise pollution.
•    However the property owner’s interest is only that of “an ordinary mamber of the community” and thus he has no standing.

* North Coast Environment Council Incorp v Minister for Resources (No 2) (1994)
-    tried to rely on ACF above- follows line of reason
-    minister argued shouldn’t have standing bc a small regional organisation and not comparable with ACF- a national organisation. Minister also argued didn’t get same amt of funding from national govt.
-    court rejected this- size of organisation and level of funding not relevant
-    look at their participation in public proceedings, public funding etc
PRINCIPLE: to have standing, an environmental organisation must be able to demonstrate a special interest in a particular environment. A mere allegation of non compliance with environmental legislation, or simply having as its objects environmental protection will not be enough. A court will find a special interest from its participation in public proceedings and public funding. Note; the size of the organisation and level of funding are not relevant.

* Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health (1995)

Facts: An appeal by the appellant, an incorporated association which espoused a range of policies, which included the opposition to women having abortions. Respondent, under a statutory scheme, supervised the trial of a drug intended to cause miscarriage. Association wrote to the secretary of respondent requesting cessation of the trial. Secretary refused and association challenged under the ADJR at common law.

PRINCIPLE: An applicant’s interest must not be remote, indirect or fanciful. It must be above an ordinary member of the public and not that of a merely someone able to speak and influence the public’s opinion. There must be some link b/w the applicant and the legislation, the moral concern of the association was not one recognised by the act.

Full federal court:
o    Right to speak and influence opinion of the public and politicians doesn’t give applicant standing
o    If look at other cases doesn’t have a similar interest to the ACF and ministers w.r.t subject matter of litigation. Don’t have standing bc all do is try to influence ppl.
o    Tried to find link b/w applicant and the purposes of the legislation- the applicants purpose to stop abortion- TGA simply aims to make sure drugs are safe. Purposes of TGA nothing to do with broader social issues.
o    TGA (Act) not directed at wide social issues like abortion but at quality, safety of therapeutic goods
-    (At 251) The applicant’s interest must not be remote, indirect or fanciful. The interest must be above that of an ordinary member of the public and must not be that of a mere intermeddler or busybody.
-    (At 252) The term a “person aggrieved” is not a restrictive one; it is of wide import. The applicant must establish that he is a person who has a complaint or grievance which he will suffer as a consequence of the decision beyond that of an ordinary member of the public. He must suffer more greatly or a different way than other members of the community. It is sufficient that the applicant has a special interest in the preservation of a particular environment: ACF at 530. Also cultural, spiritual and historical interests may suffice: ACF at 547. Speaking generally, the concern of one or more individual citizens to protect the environment is not of itself sufficient to confer standing.
-    Q: is this really a standing issue or is it the kind of case the court decides is non justiciable- so politically charged fed court doesn’t want to entertain it.
-    If look at justiciability issues raised in case- court says matter is inappropriate for courts- its for parliament.
•    Mix here b/w questions of standing and justiciability.

4.5 Statutory Reform

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 123
s123 Restraint etc of breaches of this Act
(1)    Any person may bring proceedings in the Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act, whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by or as a consequence of that breach.
(2)    Proceedings under this section may be brought by a person on his or her own behalf or on behalf of himself or herself and on behalf of other persons(with their consent), or a body corporate or unincorporated (with the consent of its committee or other controlling or governing body), having like or common interests in those proceedings.
(3)    Any person on whose behalf proceedings are brought is entitled to contribute to or provide for the payment of the legal costs and expenses incurred by the person bringing the proceedings
-    E.g. of total liberalisation of standing test- ‘any person’ may bring proceedings in the court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of this Act
-    Open standing clause

Oslack v Richmond River Council
Facts: Permission given to a development on condition developer would maintain a certain amount of natural bushland. Was discovered when flying over the devt that the site had been clear felled. Oshlack an individual who went to council said a breach of law occurred what will you do- council said nothing. Oshlack took council and the developer to land and environment court seeking to restrain the developer and council.
PRINCIPLEâ–º when making an award for costs, the court will have regard to whether an action was brought in the public interest. it would defeat the purpose of the ‘any person’ standing clauses to punish the person should the litigation fail.
-    Q: does O have standing? Yes he does bc of the any person clause.
-    Taken on appeal- held there was no reason for the ordinary rule against costs to be set aside.
-    O appealed to HCA.

High Court:
-    All judges although on different conclusions w.r.t the law all said it is a relevant consideration for the judge in awarding costs that matter brought in public interest.
-    No point in awarding open standing then saying you have to pay all costs if you lose. It’s illogical to have an any person clause as standing test and then punish the person should the litigation not be successful.
NB: the NSW land and Environment Court has abolished requirement for security of costs being lodged when matter is a public interest matter.

ALRC Beyond the door-keeper: Standing to sue for Public Remedies  Report No 78 (1996 AGPS)  Allars CC [13.5]
-    Recommends that any person should be able to commence public law proceedings unless
o    The relevant legislation clearly indicates an intention that the decision or conduct sought to be litigated should not be the subject of challenge by a person such as the applicant; or
o    In all circumstances it would not be in the public interest to proceed bc to do so would unreasonably interfere with the ability of a person having a private interest in the matter to deal with it differently or not at all.  
-    This recognises the wide range of ppl with interests in public law proceedings
-    Simple and easier to apply than current standing tests
-    Avoids inconsistencies
-    Recognises the legislature’s ultimate power to determine who should challenge government decisions.
-    Provides for actions to be brought in the public interest

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)  s 80

Truth About Motorways Pty Ltd v Macquarie Infrastructure Investment Management Ltd (2000) 74 ALJR 604

s80 TPA
FCA may grant injunctive relief where, on the application of the ACCC “or any other person”, it is satisfied that a person was engaged, or is proposing to engage in conduct in contravention of Pt V.
-    Alleged misrepresentations in the brochure for eastern distributor by Macquarie- says profits will be high
-    The word “any” doesn’t lend itself to restrictive interpretation
-    Injunctive relief under s 80 is, in its nature, one for the protection of the public interest
-    Argued that unless the person who institutes the proceedings has some direct or special interest in the subject-matter of the proceedings, there is no justiciable controversy
-    Parliament, by conferring standing upon any person to invoke the jurisdiction of the court has created the potential for a justiciable controversy. No barriers to standing.