[6] Upon hearing the same, the appellant filed another interlocutory application, for stay of the implementation of the planning permission granted to the planning applicant. The appellant's stay application is joined and supported by several (but not all) of the other appellants in the connected cases. The decision which will be delivered below, naturally, has a binding effect on the appellants in the other related appeals as well.

[7] The appellant heavily criticised the planning applicant for lack of bona fide in giving the wrong information during the earlier hearing of the discovery application. I do not think such criticism is justified in the context, for I am satisfied that it was a case of a genuine mistake or miscommunication, which the planning applicant had quickly rectified upon realising its mistake. No adverse inference against the p