2 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the intended appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success, and no basis was shown to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb.
27 May 2016
No clear and unambiguous representation existed that all eligible FSD officers occupying departmental quarters would be allocated public housing on their last application; the alleged expectation was unreasonable and unworkable given fixed annual quotas and choice/priority mechanics; the HA and HD applied the Scheme’s allocation rules without discretion to consider individual circumstances; therefore applicants’ grounds failed and the judicial review applications were dismissed.
27 May 2016
No clear and unambiguous representation or binding policy existed that entitled all eligible retiring FSD officers occupying departmental quarters to allocation under the Scheme on their last application; the absence of prior unsuccessful cases was explicable by allocation mechanics and choices; the alleged expectation was unreasonable and unworkable given fixed annual quotas and CM priority rules; no legal discretion existed to consider individual circumstances under the Scheme; judicial reviews dismissed.
27 May 2016
The court held applicants failed to prove a clear and unambiguous representation or policy giving rise to a legitimate expectation that all eligible FSD officers occupying DQs would be allocated PRH on their last pre-retirement application; allocation is governed by the CM and HA quota process, FSD has no role or discretion in allocations, and the alleged expectation was unreasonable and unworkable; accordingly judicial review grounds failed and applications were dismissed.
27 May 2016
Applicants failed to prove a clear and unambiguous representation or policy giving rise to a legitimate expectation that all eligible FSD officers occupying departmental quarters would be allocated housing at their last pre-retirement application; allocation is governed by the CM and HA quota process, there was no legal discretion to consider personal circumstances within the Scheme allocation, and the alleged expectation was unreasonable and unworkable — therefore judicial review fails and applications are dismissed.
19 Mar 2014
The judge found the defendant was not liable for the official receiver's delay, that prejudice arose from failures of both parties to make discovery and exchange witness statements in 2001, and that on the facts the discretion to refuse striking out was properly exercised; however the court granted leave to appeal limited to the ground that the official receiver may have warehoused the proceedings and that, if proved, this could affect the exercise of discretion.
17 May 2007
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the plaintiffs' application for security for costs because the amount sought was grossly exaggerated and disproportionate to the likely costs of the application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal, had taken up valuable court time and lacked adequate justification; the court did not decide the jurisdictional point as it was unnecessary given the exercise of discretion.
16 Jul 2004
The Director had expressly considered whether the applicant constituted an exception to the dependency policy and there was no evidence he failed to take into account material matters; accordingly his refusal was not irrational and the court will not overturn the exercise of his discretion.
3 Jun 2004
The court held the decision to deport was not Wednesbury unreasonable because the decision-maker considered relevant factors including the applicant's family ties, relationship and motives, weighed them against the public interest, and reasonably concluded deportation was justified; life deportation is lawful absent most exceptional circumstances. The application for certiorari was dismissed.
25 Mar 1999
Defendants failed to discharge the burden of showing cause why the charging orders nisi should not be made absolute: their alleged set-off claims and valuations were insufficiently evidenced, they had delayed prosecution of related actions, and the court would not order inquiries or discount interest on the material before it; accordingly the masters orders making the charging orders absolute were upheld and the appeals dismissed with costs.