28 Jan 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground, the Board's decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality on anxious scrutiny, and the issues raised were primarily factual determinations not amenable to judicial review.
9 May 2025
Leave refused because the applicant failed to particularize or demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had conducted an oral hearing, provided adequate reasons, properly assessed evidence and COI, and its decision met the enhanced Wednesbury standard making the judicial review challenge not reasonably arguable.
21 Nov 2023
Applicant failed to identify any viable ground demonstrating error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings were within its fact‑finding province and not open to successful judicial review, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
18 Jan 2007
The Court found TPB had in fact relied upon the URA's asserted financial viability consequences; on the evidence the financial assertions were insufficiently supported and thus amounted to an irrelevant consideration that materially influenced the Board's decision. Because the irrelevant consideration was material the TPB's decision was unlawful and was quashed; the matter was remitted for reconsideration. The Court emphasised that financial viability can be a relevant planning consideration but must be properly evidenced and balanced with other planning and property rights considerations.