The judgement, released on August 18, ruled in O’Loughlin’s favour, with the decision focusing on AT’s decision to go ahead and install the crossing and speed humps based on the view they would not “unduly impede vehicular traffic using the road”.
I don't get how he won; the wording says they did consider it. The view of AT was that the speed humps wouldn't unduly impede the flow of traffic.
I would like too read the actual ruling. Seems like he won on a technicality rather than anything substantial.
What a waste of court time.
Edit: found it; so what the argument he puts forth is covering, is: AT assumed that "the crossing and humps would not unduly impede vehicular traffic” was true. That base assumption led to the traffic calming measures that were installed. This procedural error is what he focused on.
In my opinion; he found a procedural error and wanted to chalk up a HC victory whilst a student to improve his chances of finding a job at a prestigious law firm once he graduates.