17 Mar 2022
The Supreme Court granted leave because the appeal raises a question of law of public or general importance—specifically whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal—and therefore merits determination by this Court.
26 Jun 2020
The court refused the interim application because the applicant did not persuade the court that interim relief was warranted; the High Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the urgent injunction application and directed the matter to proceed to substantive hearing on the imminent timetable.
2 Sept 2015
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in law in declining to award costs to the Council because the Judge's factual findings and discretionary weighing (including that MAL withdrew following receipt of Council evidence and that the Council altered the battleground) were open to him; the Council's public interest role does not create a presumption for costs and the Practice Note did not mandatorily apply in the factual circumstances.
2 Oct 2009
The Court refused to exercise its discretion under r 1.19 to shorten time and dismissed the application for an expedited order for vacant possession, directing that the matter proceed by the normal summary judgment process.
24 Jun 2009
Because the applicants indicated the applications would not proceed, the court dismissed the applications and reserved costs; the court directed a short fixture and set a timetable for submissions, noting a possible costs application against the debtors' solicitors.