18 May 2026
Permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify a reviewable decision, relied on incoherent and speculative allegations without objective evidence, sought remedies outside the scope of judicial review, and therefore had no real prospect of success such that the application constituted an abuse of process.
1 Feb 2008
The Council’s decision was set aside because its central adverse factual findings (that the appellant had tampered with the medical record) were not put to the appellant so he had no opportunity to explain; that procedural unfairness required remittal for a fresh enquiry before different members of the Council; costs in this Court ordered nisi in favour of the appellant.
28 Sept 1995
The court set aside the default judgment because the plaintiff's pleadings did not justify recovery for non-delivery of 276 motorcycles and there existed serious, document-based disputes (altered receipts, under-payment of deposit, suspicious single motorcycle sale) that established an arguable defence meriting trial; because both defendants were sued jointly on identical facts the judgment was set aside as to both; costs were ordered in favour of the successful first-named defendant.