LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Locus Standi – Consequential Order Where Plaintiff Lacks Standing
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When a court holds that a plaintiff has no locus standi in respect of a claim, the consequential order to be made is striking out of such claim and not dismissal; the rationale is that holding a plaintiff has no locus standi goes to the court's jurisdiction; the court cannot dismiss a claim the merit of which it is not competent to enquire into.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"When a court holds that a plaintiff has no locus standi in respect of a claim the consequential order to be made is striking out of such claim and not a dismissal of the claim. The rationale is that holding that a plaintiff has no locus standi goes to the jurisdiction of the court before which such an action is brought. When the question that a plaintiff has no locus standi to institute an action arises all that is being said in effect is that the court before which such an action is brought cannot entertain the adjudication of such an action. The court cannot dismiss a claim the merit of which it is not competent to enquire into."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Locus standi (legal standing) is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Without standing, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Proper order when standing is lacking: strike out (removes case from court without prejudice to merits). Improper order: dismissal (implies merits were considered and plaintiff lost). The distinction reflects: striking out acknowledges the court never had jurisdiction to decide the merits; dismissal suggests the court adjudicated and rejected the claim. A dismissal for lack of standing is conceptually wrong—courts cannot dismiss claims they lack jurisdiction to hear. Striking out means: the case is removed, plaintiff may have other remedies (bringing action in proper forum or by proper plaintiff), and no determination on merits was made. This procedural distinction is significant for res judicata, appeals, and future litigation rights.