3 Jun 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had died, the cause of action had thereby terminated (abatement), and any relief would serve no practical purpose and be otiose, justifying refusal of leave.
27 May 2021
Applicant failed to establish substantive or procedural legitimate expectations because there was no clear unambiguous representation; TPB’s planning judgments (including selection of vantage points and exclusion of comparator buildings) were within its broad discretion and not irrational; imposition of 120mPD BHR was not manifestly without reasonable foundation and did not breach Basic Law property rights; therefore applicant’s appeal was dismissed and lower court relief (quashing the Rejection and remitting the Representation for reconsideration) and costs rulings were not disturbed.
4 Sept 2008
The Board erred in its November 2004 review but relief was declined because a later September 2006 review corrected the error; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the court exercised its discretion on costs by varying the previous order nisi to make no order as to costs for the specified hearings and to require the applicant's costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.