It has been said that rules relating to standing (locus standi) in public law try to resolve the conflict between the “desirability of encouraging people to participate actively in the enforcement of the law” and the “undesirability of encouraging meddlesome interlopers invoking the jurisdiction of the courts in matters in which they are not concerned”. Nonetheless, standing rules that are excessively restrictive may result in certain forms of governmental action being virtually immune from judicial scrutiny. This article argues that recasting the standing rules to focus on an applicant’s suitability to bring a claim and whether the claim is sustainable on its merits accords better with the courts’ role as a check on the political branches of government and their duty to uphold the rule of law.