R (Walton) v Scottish Ministers
A person can have standing to challenge a decision affecting the environment even if they are not personally affected more than others, depending on the context.
Facts
The Scottish Ministers approved a scheme for a new road network around Aberdeen, the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Mr Walton, a local resident and chairman of a campaign group opposing the road, challenged the decision, arguing that it had been made without proper consultation and environmental assessment. The question arose whether Mr Walton was a person aggrieved with standing to bring the challenge under the relevant statute.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge on its merits, but held that Mr Walton had standing. Lord Reed said that an individual who is not personally affected by a decision may still have standing, depending on the context, especially in environmental cases, where harm to the environment may be harmful to the public generally rather than to any individual in particular. Lord Hope said that individuals who wish to challenge a decision must demonstrate a genuine interest in the aspects of the environment that they seek to protect, but that this does not require them to show that they are personally affected in a way that distinguishes them from other members of the public.
Related cases on judicial review: scope, standing and ouster clauses
- Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147
- O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
- R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663
- R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, [2020] AC 491
- R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga Khan [1993] 1 WLR 909
- R v Hull University Visitor, ex p Page [1993] AC 682
- R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
- R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] 4 All ER 329
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
