22 Apr 2026
The summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and failed to demonstrate any arguable grounds or reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review; accordingly no extension of time to appeal was granted.
22 Apr 2026
Extension of time refused because applicant was four days late, offered no valid or credible explanation for non-receipt of the Court's decision, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly the application was dismissed.
1 Apr 2026
Extension of time for filing the notice of appeal was refused because the applicant was only five days late, provided no explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; therefore the application was dismissed.
20 Nov 2025
Extension of the 14‑day appeal period was refused because the applicant gave an inadequate explanation for the delay (ignorance of the deadline is not acceptable), failed to identify any arguable ground of appeal demonstrating a real prospect of success, and therefore the interests of justice did not require granting an extension despite the short delay and lack of prejudice to respondents.
23 Oct 2025
Leave was granted and time extended because the Board, when refusing the late filing, failed to take account of the merits of the applicant's appeal as a relevant matter of fact under s 37ZT(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance; the intended judicial review was reasonably arguable and met the threshold for leave.
15 Aug 2025
The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the one day delay was not significant and caused no prejudice, the applicant failed to identify or advance any arguable ground of appeal demonstrating a realistic prospect of success; therefore the interest of justice did not require an extension.
7 Nov 2024
Extension of time and appeal were dismissed because applicants provided no reasonable explanation for delay, failed to identify any arguable legal ground (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) in the Board's Decision, and the Board and Director had adequately and separately considered the minor's claim; non-compliance with Order 80 rule 2 was treated as an irregularity only and did not justify granting an extension for a hopeless appeal.
12 Sept 2024
Refusal to extend time was warranted because the applicant's delay (about 19 months) was substantial and inordinate without good justification, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board's and Director's findings that the claim arose from a private monetary dispute with no state involvement and that internal relocation was available; accordingly the summons to extend time was dismissed and the statutory stay lifted.
30 Jan 2024
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to advance any fresh grounds or factual basis to justify a second leave application, the appropriate remedy was an appeal of the prior refusal and time to appeal had lapsed, and making a fresh substantially similar application in those circumstances constituted an abuse of process.
15 Sept 2023
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant had a very substantial unexplained delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success since the Board's adverse credibility findings and rejection of non-refoulement claims were within its fact-finding province and disclosed no reviewable public law error; the Judge had properly applied the legal standards in refusing leave to apply for judicial review.