22 Jul 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484, the matters advanced were broad and vague and largely factual (properly for the Board), and there was no basis under the ‘or otherwise’ limb; additionally the applicant had abandoned written submissions by failing to comply with directions.
23 Jun 2025
Respondent failed to comply with the New Arrangement by filing skeleton submissions late without leave, took no timely remedial steps or application for retrospective leave, and in the balancing exercise (Applicant's advanced age, needs-based award, likely multi-year delay and inequality of arms) the failure amounted to failure to prosecute with due diligence; accordingly striking out and dismissal of the leave application was justified and costs and certificate for counsel were ordered.
13 Mar 2024
The Form 86 failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 53 r 3(2) by not specifying the relief sought, not particularising grounds of review and not providing a verified affidavit of facts; as a result there were no reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success and the application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
21 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484, the proposed appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success, and there was substantial unexplained delay and non-compliance with directions, such that leave should be denied.
21 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the Notice of Motion failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, the complaints against the Board and Director were bare assertions lacking substance, the intended appeal had no merits and no reasonable prospect of success, and there was no basis to grant leave under s 22(1)(b); procedural non-compliance was treated as a mere irregularity.
15 Aug 2022
The application for permission to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to specify the decision or legal process challenged, failed to state reasons or particulars for the relief sought, and the material disclosed no realistic prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process; accordingly leave was refused with no order as to costs.
29 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for substantial delay so no basis to extend time, the Court of Appeal had correctly imposed the unless order and refused relief from sanction, and the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b).
14 May 2020
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other exceptional reasons under s.22, and the applicant's persistent breaches of Practice Direction 2.1 meant his numerous filings would not be considered; accordingly the leave application was dismissed and the filed notices of motion were revoked, with no order as to costs given the parties were unrepresented.
1 Mar 2019
The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and did not meet the statutory threshold under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 nor the "otherwise" limb; procedural non‑compliance and failure to raise issues below further precluded granting leave.
25 Jan 2019
The appeal is dismissed and leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to lodge a skeleton argument (abandoning the right to oral hearing) and the filed papers disclosed no arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness sufficient to justify leave.