R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,...

Facts

• The case concerned the UK government’s decision to provide financial aid for the Pergau Dam project in Malaysia.
• The World Development Movement Ltd (WDM), a non-governmental organisation, challenged the legality of the Foreign Secretary’s decision.
• WDM argued the aid was unlawful, claiming it was financially unsound, tied to an arms deal, and contrary to the Overseas Development and Cooperation Act 1980.
• The central issue before the court was whether WDM possessed sufficient standing (locus standi) to bring a judicial review claim.

Issues

1. Whether WDM, lacking direct personal loss, had sufficient standing to challenge the Foreign Secretary’s decision.
2. Whether the provision of aid for the Pergau Dam was unlawful under the relevant statutory framework.

Decision

• The High Court held that WDM had standing to bring the claim despite lacking a direct personal interest.
• The court considered WDM’s concern for public spending, relevant experience, and the absence of a more suitable challenger.
• The judgment marked a shift toward a more open approach to locus standi in cases of major public importance.
• The Foreign Secretary’s decision was subject to judicial review given the potential illegality and the public interest involved.

Legal Principles

• Standing in judicial review may be granted to public interest groups where matters of significant public importance are raised.
• The court’s approach to locus standi should not be unduly restrictive where accountability of government action and legality are at stake.
• NGOs can be appropriate challengers in public law, especially where individual personal interests are diffuse or impractical to establish.

Conclusion

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p World Development Movement Ltd broadened judicial review access by endorsing an open approach to standing. The judgment facilitated public interest challenges to government actions, emphasising judicial oversight and accountability even absent direct personal loss, thereby influencing subsequent developments in administrative law.