25 Sept 2025
Although the applicant's delay in filing was not intentional, she failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal or to show errors of law or failures to consider relevant matters; there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review and therefore no extension of time should be granted; summons dismissed.
12 Sept 2025
The leave application was dismissed and no extension of time granted because (1) once the Board validly accepted the applicant's withdrawal the appeal was finally determined and the applicant's intended challenge was procedurally inappropriate and unparticularised, and (2) the applicant was out of time by 1 year and 3 months, provided no good reason for the delay and showed no arguable merits, so the court refused to exercise its discretion to extend time.
8 Jul 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any arguable public law grounds or realistic prospect of success; the Court will not substitute its own assessment for the Board's fact‑finding and there was no demonstrated legal or procedural error in the Board's decision.
25 Jun 2025
The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant provided only bare allegations with no particulars and no reasonably arguable grounds to show error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, which had appropriately found no subjective fear; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
20 May 2025
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board applied the correct legal standards, its factual findings (localized risk, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation) were not susceptible to intervention on judicial review, and the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
13 Dec 2022
Leave to appeal refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the grounds relied on were disputes over factual findings and credibility which did not show any obvious error by the trial judge, and alleged inconsistencies were immaterial or insufficiently particularised to undermine the judge's findings.
17 Sept 2021
Leave to appeal refused because the Husband failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; the application to adduce fresh evidence failed the Ladd v Marshall test (evidence obtainable with reasonable diligence prior to trial; would not have materially affected the relocation outcome; and credibility concerns), and the grounds largely re‑argued matters of supervised access or raised matters not pursued at trial; no stay granted.