The decision marked the adoption of the principles of R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses [1982] AC 617 approach to standing in judicial review into New Zealand law.

On 20 May 1985 the two plaintiffs, as members of two Auckland rugby union clubs, sought to overturn a decision by the NZRFU Council to accept an invitation for the All Blacks to tour South Africa.

"[3] On 6 June the defendants strike out application was heard in the High Court by Sir Ronald Davison, the Chief Justice, who struck out the claim and dismissed the action, declining to grant the plaintiffs standing.

The Court agreed with the Chief Justice that the Council was not the wrong body to accept the invitation and held that the appeal failed on this point.

[10]The Court also noted that although the NZRFU was a private, voluntary association, its decision in this case put it in a "position of major national importance";[11] that the plaintiffs could not be dismissed as "mere busybodies, cranks or other mischief makers"; that unless persons such as the plaintiffs were granted standing they would have no "effective way of establishing whether or not the Union is acting within its lawful powers"; and that, As a result of the disturbances accompanying the 1981 South African tour of New Zealand many citizens, including normally law-abiding citizens, were alleged to have gone too far when indulging in protest activity.

On 11 July the plaintiffs applied for an interim injunction to prevent the team leaving as it became clear the hearing would not be finished before the All Blacks were due to depart.

[13] Casey J ruled that, [T]he plaintiffs in my opinion have put forward a strong prima facie case at this point for their proposition that the present tour cannot benefit rugby in this country.

It is impossible to regard the leaders of nearly all our major churches, or a unanimous House of Representatives or the Auckland and North Harbour Rugby Unions in this light.