24 Mar 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any pleaded or arguable public law grounds undermining the Board's factual and legal conclusions; the Board applied the law correctly and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
20 Mar 2026
The 1st applicant's leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time and lacked an arguable case; the 2nd applicant was granted an extension of time and leave because the Board committed an error of law by failing to give separate consideration to the child's personal circumstances and claim, warranting leave to apply for judicial review while the Board's substantive findings concerning the 1st applicant were lawful and not irrational.
17 Jul 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB decision, which was supported by factual findings and proper consideration of country information; absent such errors the court will not substitute its own factual assessment for that of the TCAB.
26 Jun 2025
The court allowed the applicant to withdraw the leave application and dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits because the withdrawal was voluntary and made with full understanding of the TCAB decision (which had allowed the appeal and reversed the Director's decision), and the court must not leave the action at large; the court therefore exercised its power to amend the Form 86 on its own motion and to dismiss the leave application, relying on established Court of Appeal authorities.
6 Feb 2025
Leave was granted because the proposed grounds (failure to conduct child‑specific assessments and inadequate/improper assessment of COI and reasons) were reasonably arguable; the Director’s decision that there was no significant change or realistic prospect of success involved insufficient child‑specific inquiry and selective use of COI, warranting full judicial review of the refusal to permit subsequent claims.
17 May 2023
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were not legally vulnerable and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
2 Feb 2023
The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and relied on previously rejected, unsubstantiated and fabricated evidence; the court will not disturb credibility findings absent legal error, therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
1 Apr 2022
The Board was the primary finder of fact and adequately applied the law; lack of legal or language assistance caused no prejudice; the Board gave adequate reasons; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Board's decision; therefore leave to apply for judicial review and any extension of time were properly refused and the appeal had no merit.
15 Dec 2020
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to set out any grounds below or show any error of law or procedural unfairness by the Board, the credibility and risk assessments fall within the Board's primary role, the fresh general and unparticularised grounds raised on appeal lacked explanation and did not show a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore there was no basis to grant leave to apply for judicial review.
13 Jun 2019
The Court dismissed the appeal because the judge correctly concluded the application for leave had no reasonable prospect of success: the Board had conducted a full rehearing with an interpreter, rejected the applicant's account on credibility grounds and made adverse factual findings which the applicant did not challenge as amounting to an error of law or procedural unfairness; any lack of pre‑hearing translation did not render the Board's rehearing or the judge's refusal of leave legally flawed.