I think you are right on your last point. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that the reason for distinguishing Lin was that a) Barking had since amended their scheme so as to include details of the discretionary policy, and b), it meant he didn’t have to hear submissions, or more importantly give judgment on such submissions, on relief.

Once Barking had amended their allocation scheme what relief could he have given if the policy itself was lawful? None.