It is now commonplace for courts to remark that standing to seek judicial review is 'context-sensitive'. The questions of how the courts adapt standing to context, and whether they do so appropriately, have, however, received remarkably little scholarly and judicial attention. This is perhaps because, until recently, there has been relatively little in the case law to spark scholarly interest. Standing, however, is in the midst of a resurgence. This article makes use of a distinction between three types of judicial review case-challenges to (i) favourable targeted, (ii) unfavourable targeted and (iii) non-targeted decisions-as a mode through which to explore the growing body of standing case law. In doing so, it both seeks to further understanding of how courts determine what constitutes a 'sufficient interest' and to highlight areas of the law in need of clarification or reconsideration.