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

Child Poverty Action Group challenged administrative guidance used in processing supplementary-benefit claims. It argued that the guidance misunderstood when a claim had to be referred to an adjudication officer and what could be considered when deciding whether it was practicable to determine the claim within the statutory period. The organisation sought declarations defining those duties more strictly. The judge dismissed the application, and CPAG appealed. Questions about its sufficient interest were discussed, although the departments had not pressed a full standing objection in the proceedings as they developed.

Whether the benefits guidance misconstrued the statutory duties for referring and determining claims, and what could properly be concluded about CPAG’s standing without full argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and declined to grant the requested declarations. It did not accept that the Secretary of State and Chief Adjudication Officer had misconstrued the relevant statutory duties. Because the substantive challenge failed, the court did not require full argument on CPAG's standing. It nevertheless indicated that, on the material before it, the application had properly been treated as within the court's jurisdiction. The parties' willingness not to contest standing could not itself confer jurisdiction. The discussion therefore supports attention to the applicant's real connection with the subject matter, but should not be presented as a fully argued universal rule for organisations or local authorities.

Standing in judicial review depends on sufficient interest and cannot be created merely by party agreement. CPAG’s application was entertained on the available material, but its substantive challenge to the interpretation of benefits-administration duties failed.

Child Poverty Action Group combines statutory interpretation with an instructive, limited discussion of standing. The court rejected the substantive attack on the benefits administration guidance, so it did not need to resolve standing after full argument. It nevertheless regarded the application as properly entertained on the material before it. The case should not be cited as an unlimited rule that advocacy organisations always have standing. Its discussion also warns that parties cannot confer jurisdiction merely by agreeing not to contest an applicant's entitlement to sue.