Mark Elliott. Public Law (3 ed 2017). pp 573-574.
Elliott distinguishes between judicial review ("JR") to enforce duties on agencies, and judicial review to enforce rights. He says this is an important but subtle distinction. It is too subtle for me to fathom. Can someone please ELI15 (Explain Like I'm Fifteen)?
3.3.2 Possible approaches to standing
We think differently about the public law that is enforced via judicial review than we do about the private law that is enforced in claims brought in contract, tort, and so on. When claimants seek judicial review, they are not seeking to vindicate rights that have allegedly been infringed by, for example, a procedurally unfair government decision. Rather, they are seeking to enforce the duties—for example, the duty to act fairly—under which public law places government bodies.
This is a subtle, yet important, distinction. It reflects the fact that whereas the prevailing view is that a breach of contract is an essentially private matter, a breach of public law is something in which the public generally has a legitimate interest. On this view, even if a specific individual suffers particular harm as a result of an unlawful decision by a public body, the public as a whole has an interest in ensuring that government authorities respect the principles of good administration that the courts have developed.