Standing Room Only? Further standing setbacks for the Good Law Project as High Court dismisses antibody testing JR

14 Oct 2022 By Imogen Proud

R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Abingdon Health PLC Interested Party) [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC)

Philip Moser KCEwan West and Khatija Hafesji represented the successful Department of Health and Social Care.

Ligia Osepciu and Clíodhna Kelleher represented Abingdon Health PLC, the Interested Party.

The judgment is available here.


On 7 October 2022, the High Court (Waksman J) handed down judgment in the judicial review challenge brought by the Good Law Project (“GLP”) to decisions of the Department of Health and Social Care (“DHSC”) to enter into three Covid-related contracts with Abingdon Health PLC (“Abingdon”) for Covid antibody testing.

The Court dismissed GLP’s claim in its entirety and went on to find that GLP lacked standing to bring such claims.

This is a juggernaut of a judgment, running to 551 paragraphs, covering rationality, apparent bias, equal treatment and transparency, State aid and allegations of foul play in JR.

In order to remain bite-size, this case note will focus on how the High Court approached standing, and the implications for standing in other public law and procurement litigation.

Please click here to read the case note.

The comments made in this case note are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.