30 Apr 2026
The application for an extension of time was refused and the summons dismissed because the applicant failed to file grounds or written submissions, advanced only vague assertions that did not identify any error in the Leave Decision, and there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal such that granting an extension would be futile.
22 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's factual findings, and the applicant's procedural non‑compliance (failure to lodge skeleton submissions) justified debarment and disposition of the appeal on the papers.
10 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable, particularised grounds to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; under binding authority the Court of Appeal's role is confined to the grounds advanced and not to rehear the substantive non-refoulement decision, and the applicant's procedural non-compliance warranted disposal on paper.
24 Mar 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars; general and vague assertions are insufficient to overturn a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, and the subsequent New Documents submitted without leave are inadmissible and irrelevant to the leave application.
24 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and failed to comply with procedural directions (no skeleton arguments), and therefore there were no viable grounds to justify overturning the Judge's refusal to grant an extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review.
18 Mar 2026
An appeal from a bankruptcy order does not require leave to appeal; the Debtor's summons seeking leave was misconceived and is dismissed with costs.
2 Mar 2026
The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the NOA was misconceived as the improper route for challenging taxation decisions and the Amendment Summons was unmeritorious; the court's sua sponte jurisdictional point did not justify depriving the successful plaintiff of costs. Therefore the costs order nisi was made absolute and the defendant ordered to pay costs, including costs of the variation application to be summarily assessed.
23 Feb 2026
Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to particularise any error in the judge’s refusal of leave, advanced no viable ground to reverse the Leave Decision, and failed to comply with procedural directions thereby waiving an oral hearing; the Court will not re-open the merits of the Board's decision on such an appeal.
23 Feb 2026
Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or particularise any viable ground to disturb the judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review and accordingly there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with the Leave Decision.
16 Feb 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant advanced no viable grounds to challenge the Leave Decision; under controlling authority the Court will not re‑examine the merits afresh and there was no basis to interfere with the judge's refusal of leave.