29 Sept 2025
The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision or the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review, therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
4 Oct 2024
The Buy‑out Summons was dismissed because the proposed buy‑out was not shown to be demonstrably in the paramount interests of the MIP: material valuation disputes and commercial terms were substantive rather than merely procedural, the supervisory jurisdiction is protective not a forum for resolving inter partes business negotiations, and the Committee retains discretion to seek compliance with the Setting Aside Order or negotiate terms; however the Court authorized the Committee not to seek restitution or recourse against CK in respect of two properties already sold by KH.
18 Jul 2023
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on credibility, severity of risk and internal relocation were within its province and not shown to be affected by any public law error (misdirection, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and the judge did not err in refusing leave for judicial review.
28 Jul 2022
Extension of time was refused and application for leave dismissed because the applicant's challenge to the Board lacked any arguable legal ground: the Board's findings on credibility, low/dissipated risk, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation were not shown to be legally erroneous, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury irrational, and therefore the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
28 Jun 2022
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to comply with Order 53 rule 3(2)(a) by not specifying the relief sought or the reasons for relief in Form 86 or the supporting affidavit, and no arguable grounds were demonstrated to meet the threshold for leave.
13 Nov 2006
Examining magistrates possess an implied power to stay proceedings to prevent abuse of their own process but, as a matter of policy and practicality, that power should not be exercised to determine autrefois issues in committal proceedings; autrefois pleas should generally be determined at trial or by the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
14 Nov 1996
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because it is extremely unlikely any practical relief could be granted (Judge Caird was unlikely to be able to continue due to medical retirement or removal), and the appropriate forum to determine the stay is the District Court (Judge Kilgour), so the High Court should not intervene at this stage.