6 May 2026
Applicant’s one‑day delay did not have a valid explanation, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board’s adverse credibility findings, and therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
11 Mar 2026
Refusal of extension of time was warranted because the applicant provided no reason for the 5‑day delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success; applying the established four-factor test, these conclusions justified dismissal of the out‑of‑time appeal application.
26 Feb 2026
The court accepted the applicant's sworn affirmation that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, that she understood the Board's decision would remain in force and that she wished to return home; on that basis the court allowed the withdrawal and granted leave to withdraw the leave application.
25 Feb 2026
Refusal of extension was justified because the applicant was more than two months late, offered no valid or substantiated reason for non-receipt of the Court's decision, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Court's prior dismissal; on balance the factors did not favour granting an extension.
12 Feb 2026
The application to withdraw was granted because the Applicant unequivocally and voluntarily sought to withdraw her application at the hearing and there was no evidence of coercion; in addition the court amended Form 86 to correctly identify the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party under the relevant rules.
19 Jan 2026
The court allowed the withdrawal because the record showed nothing to suggest the applicant's decision was anything other than an informed, voluntary and conscious decision and therefore the leave application could validly be withdrawn.
2 Dec 2025
Because the applicant applied to withdraw his leave application, there was no evidence the withdrawal was not voluntary and there were no outstanding matters, the court properly dismissed the application rather than leaving the action at large.
10 Nov 2025
The applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there was no outstanding matter in the action; accordingly the proper disposition was to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large, in line with the authority cited (Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi).
26 Sept 2025
The applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and there was no outstanding matter; accordingly the court properly dismissed the leave application rather than leaving the action at large.
28 Aug 2025
The applicant's filing of a Notice of Discontinuance under Order 21, Rule 2 demonstrated no intention to prosecute the leave application; the court therefore discontinued the leave application.