I think the most telling part of the judgement is;
I accept that had it not been for the earlier decision in January and the challenge mounted by the claimant it is unlikely that the Committee would have ever turned to consider the question of de-restriction. But the fact that the earlier decision and the challenge triggered consideration of the issue does not mean to say that any defect in the process, by which the first decision was reached, tainted the second decision. The trigger for the decision to de-restrict played no part in the actual consideration as to whether to de-restrict. It could hardly be said that the decision was taken in order to deprive the claimant of licences to which he would otherwise have be entitled. After all, his challenge in January was made for the purpose of securing an entitlement to consideration of the grant of licences ahead of others. A decision in October resulted in him having any licences he wanted. The damage to him, which was advanced in his letter and, accordingly, considered by the Committee was in the damage to the market in transfer of licences. The Committee was entitled to reject the claimant's arguments in relation to damage to the market in transfer of licences and it was not argued before me to the contrary
In other words because you threatened the council with litigation, the council decided to de-limit.
But you have to wonder why he objected to others gaining 'free' plates, when he had been given many over the years.
