20 May 2026
Refusal to extend time because delay was six days, the applicant gave no explanation for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as the Board's finding that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated was not credibly challenged.
12 May 2026
Relief from sanction was refused because the summons was filed outside the 14-day time limit, no explanation was provided for the failure to comply with the Unless Order despite receipt of ordinary post, the court had already granted an extension and made the consequences clear, and the underlying appeal was unarguable; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief.
6 May 2026
Extension of time refused because the Leave Decision was effectively served at the applicant's last known address and not returned, the applicant offered no reasonable explanation for delay and had sought cancellation of his leave, he failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness warranting intervention, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
27 Apr 2026
The application for an extension of time was refused because the applicant was over three months late, provided no reasonable explanation or evidence for delayed receipt of properly served court documents, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial to the respondent.
20 Apr 2026
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show service or explain how and when he learned of the Leave Decision, failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the judge's decision, the Board's adverse factual findings and conclusions on state protection/internal relocation were open on the evidence, and there was no realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal.
3 Mar 2026
Although the delay was short and the applicant explained late receipt, the principal responsibility for the late service lay with the applicant for failing to notify his transfer of detention, he advanced no grounds for an appeal and thus no prospect of success, and his stated intention was to buy time rather than genuinely to challenge the Decision; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the Summons.
27 Feb 2026
Although the applicant's short delay was reasonably explained by a service/postal issue (omission of flat number and possible address change), she advanced no public law grounds of illegality or irrationality and there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal; accordingly extension of time was not in the interests of justice and was refused.
3 Dec 2025
The application for permission to appeal out of time is refused because the applicant's delay of 101 days lacked a reasonable explanation (medical records and grief inadequate and inconsistent with attendance at the hearing), reliance on the Judicial Administration's handling of his complaints was irrelevant to the statutory appeal period, and the proposed grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success in light of prior adjudications and the high evidential threshold required to impugn judgments obtained after full consideration.
20 Nov 2025
Leave was dismissed because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Director's earlier decision was not reviewable after appeal to the Board; notice was properly issued to the address provided and it was appropriate to proceed in the Applicant's absence; the Board provided adequate reasons and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
25 Sept 2025
The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay of approximately five months was substantial, the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay, service of notices and decision was held to be valid, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success or genuine grounds.