18 Jan 2012
Stay reinstated because applicant has a reasonably arguable case, approval of the draft OZP would likely render the appeals nugatory, and the Board can practicably amend the draft to excise the contested lot so as to avoid undue prejudice to third parties; on balance justice requires a stay pending the outcome of the appeals.
18 Jan 2012
The court reinstated the stay because the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable appeal and, absent a stay, approval of the draft OZP would likely render the appeals nugatory; the balance of convenience favors a stay given the Board can, in the exercise of its powers under the Ordinance, consider amending the draft OZP (including excising the contested lot) to allow non‑controversial parts to proceed, and therefore the stay is just and fair pending determination of the appeals.
8 Apr 2008
The Court refused leave because the questions posed were not arguable or of sufficient general/public importance: hope value and change of permitted use are relevant considerations, other possible uses are relevant to the factual inquiry whether all economically viable use has been denied, and the appellant's formulations did not raise novel or maintainable points for the Court of Final Appeal.
25 Apr 2005
The Board's decision was quashed because its procedure was unfair: it obtained and relied decisively on material opinions from the Lands Department and the Department of Justice without disclosing them to the applicant or allowing the applicant to make representations; further, the applicant showed at least a viable arguable case that the draft OZP restrictions could constitute a de facto deprivation under Article 105 and s.4(2) of the Town Planning Ordinance, so the matter must be remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing; a declaratory order was unnecessary; costs awarded to applicant.