30 Apr 2021
Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for his delay, was not credible about non‑receipt of the refusal, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as it sought effectively to re‑argue the merits of the underlying non‑refoulement decision.
13 Nov 2020
Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, failed to maintain a proper address for service, and the underlying application lacked merit so that granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.
2 Apr 2019
The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to apply promptly and did not provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay; additionally the underlying non-refoulement claim lacked merit, so granting an extension would not be in the interests of justice.
20 Mar 2019
Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay, failed to keep the court informed of his address and communications, was notified of the decision, and the underlying application lacked arguable merit; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
28 Feb 2019
The applicant failed to provide an acceptable, contemporaneous explanation supported by affidavit for the delay and the underlying judicial review application lacked arguable merit; applying the discretionary criteria (length of delay, reasons and merits) the court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons for extension of time.
14 Dec 2018
Refusal of extension of time was justified because the applicant failed to act promptly, the delay was attributable to his failure to provide an up to date address and his own inaction, and the underlying judicial review application lacked merit; consequently it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
29 Jan 2018
Leave was refused because the Director and the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed credibility and COI, the applicant failed to produce corroborative evidence despite opportunity, and no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated that would make the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable.
4 Feb 2016
Extension of time was refused and leave denied because the applicant was significantly out of time, provided no credible explanation for delay, voluntarily withdrew the Board appeal (no error shown in that decision), failed to exhaust alternative remedies and showed no reasonably arguable case; allowing an extension would prejudice good administration.
8 Sept 2014
The court granted an extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review because the applicant demonstrated a reasonably arguable case that the adjudicator may have failed to accurately describe or address certain factual matters, did not properly consider relevant country of origin information (including material identified in recent authority ST) and may have erred in deciding not to hold an oral hearing; those grounds have realistic prospects and warrant substantive review.