Naturally the parties concerned in the matters must have sufficient interest in the case concerned for judicial review to be at its most effective. The courts in this situation will be interested to see the extensity of the 'sufficient interest/ locus standi' they posses in order to seek judicial review successfully. The purpose and the advantage of the standing requirements is that they 'filter out' unmeritorious, frivolous or trivial applications and thereby save time of the courts. In this case, the main focus is placed upon an interest group and their interest in decision that affects society, as a whole.
In illustrating this, there are two cases, upon contrast, can highlight the significance of the sufficient loci standi that the pressure groups have. In R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex. parte Rose Theatre Trust Co.  1 QB 504, held that the Trust did not have loci standi as the question of standing should be determined on the basis of whether the applicant has personal interest. The act of forming a company did not in itself give the members' locus standi or the company. It is clear from this, that the pressure group may not fulfil criteria of being personally affected by the decision or activity in question.
In contrast to this, R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex. parte Greenpeace  1 WLR 570, it was held that Greenpeace did actually have standing to apply for review. As it must be taken to account that Greenpeace is a well-resourced public interest group, committed to broad public interest. (UK, alone, has over 400,000 supporters) It is claimed to represent broader public interests, as is in a much better position to present a case than an ordinary individual.
In relation to all this, it is clear that the authority in question e. g. the League, cannot merely base their application on loci standi, as further evidence is required. It would be appropriate to examine the statute in question (UK Lottery Act) to inquest further in gaining a better understanding of a successive application of judicial review. Further to this, the existence of there being grounds of review must be regarded, as this will assist in strengthening the case for the League. As a famous case Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service  AC 374 (commonly known as the GCHQ case), this provides the three-fold classifications of the grounds for judicial review.
It is in this case that Lord Diplock was able to identify the three main areas, which were to be under court scrutiny in major judicial review cases: The ULC have also failed to provide sufficient evidence in relation as to why the League was not consulted or even referred to. The failure of the lack of notification given to the Anti-Gambling League means that this draws attention, and presents an argument in favour of the League as to there been a breach of statutory requirement. In Attorney- General v Fulham Corporation  1 Ch 440, the Corporation was empowered by
statute to maintain wash-houses, but this power did not extend to the operation of a laundry. In this, there is a clear illustration of the fact that the decision/ activity was in excess of its conferred powers, therefore it can be said that the Corporation was acting ultra vires. The court held that the maintenance of the washhouses should not be used for profit-making purposes, in the same way the ULC should not encourage or even favour the promotion of gambling by granting licence to the a body that would encourage further gambling habits.
Abuse of power is another means by which the decision-maker can be said to be acting ultra vires. In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food  AC 997, held that Ministers are under a duty to use discretionary powers to promote Parliament's intention, therefore would be acting ultra vires if they acted prior to the policy and objects of the Act in question. Irrationality Here the grounds for judicial review can arise when the decision-maker does not exercise discretion properly or abuses the discretion conferred.
A decision-maker that is conferred to the discretionary powers is expected to consider each case on its own particular set of merits and facts. This can be said to be inter-linked with those of the reasons given above, as in ULC's case the discretionary power together with the decision exercised are unlawful and irrational. According to the Director of the Anti-Gambling League, Mark, the decision made by ULC in granting of the licence to Fat Cats plc, was irrational. The basis of this argument can be challenged on the grounds of irrationality:
"… can also be referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness/ irrationality. " This is one of the principles used in judicial review, sometimes it is considered as the 'Wednesbury principal'. This is concerned with the reasonableness of the actions derived from the public body concerned. The principle applies where the courts consider the action deemed so irrational that no body under the same circumstances would have reached the same decision. These rules derive from the case Associated Provincial House v Wednesbury Corporation  1 KB 223
"It applies to a decision, which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic, or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. " In relating to this, the decision made by ULC was regarded to be irrational by the League when the decision to award the new licence was taken without consulting them (the League). As mentioned above, the Director of the League regards the decision made by ULC to be irrational, however, this is not the case as the decision taken is not as outrageous to constitute irrationality.
In practice, it can be said that there are very few cases that are successful on these grounds and this case, however is not one of them. There are other grounds, which the Director of the League is able to argue to satisfy a successful application of judicial review, contrary to s. 4(3) of the UK Lottery Act: As s. 4(3) of the Act states: " ULC shall not grant such a licence unless ULC is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to run the UK Lottery. "
Here, the Director of the League opposes strong grounds for argument, in terms of challenging the statute, together with the ULC's interpretation of what constituted "a fit and proper person". The Rules of Natural Justice is a concept that is based on the idea of fairness. This is looking at the decision-maker not giving a general 'duty' to give reasoning for decision, and if it is challenged by judicial proceedings on the grounds of failure to give reasons, therefore courts would regard not give much consideration for the decision of the case.
A example is in R v Lambeth Borough Council ex parte Walters (1993) 26 LICR 170 On the other hand, the courts may hold that the failure to provide sufficient reasoning is more likely to prejudice an applicant's success in the application for judicial review, as in R v Doody  3 All ER 92. Also a failure to give reasons may also amount to arbitrariness, in Padfield v Minister of Agriculure, Fisheries and Food  AC 997 "… no good reason for that decision and that accordingly the decision itself is irrational.
" In this respect the League had made written representations to ULC in relation to the matter in question of what constituted 'a fit and proper person', there was no explanation given, nor were reasons given for the decision of granting the application to Fat Cats plc. The League had evidence as they had been reviewing Fat Cats plc together with ULC, as the granting of the licence would therefore mean that there is a further encouragement of gambling habits.
Further to this, a claim of the ULC members being biased in favour of the gambling industry, in particular the chairman of ULC had expressed publicly that was in support of there being a new TV Gambling Channel. In respect to all this, the decision made by ULC can be said to be irrational, as there is evidence to show that the way in which the decision for the licence was granted, and the failure to provide sufficient reasoning lead to this irrationality. The procedure of applying for judicial review is through: 1. Write a 'letter before action'.
The applicant / lawyer should write to the decision-maker in order to allow him/her the opportunity of remedying the situation. Failure to do so can result in the application being rejected. 2. The applicant has to apply for leave for judicial review as promptly as possible and in any event within three months of the occurrence of the alleged 'wrong, contrary to Order 53(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The court does have the discretion to allow late applications, but there would have to be good reasons for the delay, Order 53(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The applicant seeking leave for judicial review, the application, must therefore be made ex parte (without giving notice to the decision-maker in question), it is imperative that the authority draft and submit Form 86A to the court together with a supporting affidavit verifying the facts relied upon. The judge can determine the application for leave without the necessity of a hearing, unless applicant requests an oral hearing in the notice. A clear illustration of there been a letter of action been forwarded to the court is vital before anything can actually take place.