14 Jan 2025
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant's death terminated the cause of action and granting the remedy would serve no practical purpose.
22 Feb 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant expressly withdrew the application and the court refused to grant a remedy that would be otiose under established authority; therefore there was no practical purpose in granting relief.
3 Sept 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant expressly withdrew the application and the court concluded that granting leave would serve no practical purpose (otiose), applying AW v Director of Immigration and established judicial review principles; the court therefore exercised its discretion to dismiss.
9 Sept 2019
The court refused to exercise its discretion under Order 45 r6 and dismissed the summons because the Plaintiff steadfastly refused a second chance, there were no rare or exceptional circumstances to excuse non-performance, and the appropriate remedies were contempt proceedings or taking the account.
17 Jul 2006
The Court held that the approved EIA report did not lawfully meet the Study Brief and Technical Memorandum requirements because the QRA failed to quantify the catastrophic instantaneous 100% tank failure scenario and its potential fatalities; Annex 4 requires quantitative assessment of scenarios that may cause fatalities (even if low frequency) after proper identification from generic history adjusted for project specifics. Accordingly the s.8(3) approval (and the consequential s.10 permit) was quashed; s.6(3) is provisional and is subsumed by the s.8(3) approval.
1 Dec 2004
The court held that the 2nd applicant is an aggrieved person under s.291(7) and that the Company has more than a shadowy prospect of possessing rights or claims in the PRC joint venture; exercising its discretion in favour of restoration, the court ordered Easewin Properties Limited restored to the register and apportioned costs between the parties as specified.
18 Nov 2003
The Director's reasons (both financial incapacity and later doubt as to genuineness arising from further information and airport interview) were bona fide, supported by evidence and not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Chief Executive in Council is not generally required to give reasons when confirming decisions under s.53 and, on these facts, lack of express reasons did not render the decision unfair; accordingly the judicial review is dismissed and costs awarded.