The legal term for having the right to originate an action is called 'Locus Standi' - literally in latin 'a place to stand'. It means you have to be legally enabled by statute to be in the position to originate an affadavit commencing a case as a plaintiff against a defendant.
The matter of whether this provision is applicable can be challenged right up to the Court of Appeal, a long process. Of course if the COA accepts the appeal then it becomes a 'precedent' for any further cases of similar constituent.
A good example is the former footballer and one of the '66 World Cup squad George Eastham. In 1963 he won a Landmark case against his club Newcastle United who held his player registration and denied him the right therefore to transfer to Arsenal. Under the terms of the
Retain and Transfer system then applicable in Association Football, Eastham contended this action denied him the right to ply his trade freely and diminished his earnings unfairly. During the hearing (actions usually consist of many court sessions) the defence raised the question of Locus Standi. They inferred that as the rules for transfer in Eastham's place of work were between the FA and the two clubs involved, Eastham had no right to bring the action in the first place, as he was not a perty to this agreement. The Judge however ruled that as his life and that of his dependants was unfairly effected by this overarching legislation then he did have the right to conjecture. He persisted and won.
I've had cause to utilise this precedent on more than one occasion, but it depends on the opinion of each Justice to interpret the argument within the unique circumstance of the case he's hearing. I succeeded in both instances, but only after an elevation to the 'Lords' on one, after Mr Justice Jeremiah
'Horrible' Harman
(sic) - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/56369.stm - rejected my argument as
'a rotten old case' This colourful gentleman later
'resigned' after much criticism. He was to me and many others what John Mortimer characterised so well in 'Rumpole's' nemesis The
'Mad Bull', Mr. Justice Bullingham!
Excuse the wander here on a personal level. In closing, I completely concur with Mathew Scott's opinion regards Ms Tailiefar and would consider her grounds for appeal as
perfidious in the extreme. Also it will cost her (
or George Soros) a lot of money to proceed.
