24 Apr 2026
The delay was short but the applicant failed to identify any grounds of appeal or demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; language difficulties and non-receipt of the decision letter did not establish sufficient justification for extension. Accordingly, extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
27 Mar 2026
The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the court refuses to extend time: the delay (about nine months) is significant, the explanation (lost documents) is insufficient when the applicant knew of the Deportation Order and could have sought assistance, there is potential prejudice to proper administration in late challenges to deportation, and the proposed grounds lack any reasonably arguable public law basis since the Deportation Order falls squarely within s20(1)(a) Cap 115 and prior non-refoulement and appeal proceedings do not create a legal impediment t…
24 Mar 2026
The court held that the applicant's leave application was reasonably arguable because the Board's decision did not make apparent that it had properly assessed the merits of the non-refoulement claim when refusing late filing; because the threshold for leave was met and merits weighed in favour of granting an extension of time, the court exercised its discretion to allow the applicant to file the leave application out of time and granted leave to apply for judicial review subject to directions to commence proceedings within 14 days.
10 Mar 2026
Refusal to grant extension of time and dismissal of leave application because the Form was filed over two years late with no explanation or extension application, and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable—the Board's decision was comprehensive and free of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave was refused.
25 Feb 2026
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no valid reason for the 20-day delay, the Court's decision had been validly served to his last known address and he was deemed to have received it, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; on balance the extension factors weighed against granting relief.
28 Oct 2025
Relief from sanction is granted for the 2nd Plaintiff because, on balance of the Order 2 rule 5(1) factors, the 2nd Plaintiff has a meritorious claim, the failure to comply was not intentional, the prejudice of dismissal would be disproportionate, and the 2nd Plaintiff has since taken steps to pay security; relief is refused for the 1st Plaintiff because its claim lacks merit and standing. The Plaintiffs are to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis with specified summary assessments and the 2nd Plaintiff is given seven days to pay the ordered security.
8 Oct 2025
The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant was over three years late without explanation and the intended challenge lacked arguable merit given the Board's reasoned, lawful and rational decision.
8 Aug 2025
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time under Order 53 r.4(1) without any explanation or request for an extension; the Board's Decision was lawful, rational and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard with adequate reasons and uncontested country information supporting relocation within Pakistan; additionally the applicant's repeated defaults indicated lack of bona fide intention to pursue the application, so no extension of time was granted.
11 Jun 2025
The application is dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (Order 53 r3), failed to demonstrate standing, failed to identify a proper target or specify the relief sought, raised doubts as to the amenability of the subject matter to judicial review, and disclosed no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success.
8 May 2025
Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant's delay of over 12 months was very substantial and inordinate, he produced no credible evidence or justification for the delay, the intended application disclosed no reasonably arguable grounds or errors of law in the Director's or Board's decisions, and the Board and Director had lawfully and reasonably assessed risk, state protection and internal relocation; therefore no prospect of success justified extension.