27 Feb 2023
The appeal was invalid and must be dismissed because it challenged a non-final/interlocutory order and the applicant failed to obtain the mandatory leave from the lower court within the required time and did not establish special circumstances to excuse that failure; therefore the appeal and the related summons were revoked.
4 Mar 2022
The court held the recognition order and applications for stays are interlocutory in character and leave to appeal is required; the applicants' out‑of‑time filing was excused and time extended, but leave to appeal was refused because there was no real prospect of success and no other reason in the interests of justice; consequently the leave applications were dismissed and costs awarded against the applicants/defendant.
12 Jan 2021
The intended appeal was unarguable on its merits because the TCAB properly assessed the substance of the non-refoulement claim and the applicant advanced no valid grounds for judicial review; given the lack of merit, it was futile to extend time despite some explanatory circumstances, so the application for extension of time is refused and the summons dismissed.
10 Sept 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal decisions that refusal of an extension of time leading to refusal of leave falls within Order 59 r21(1)(g) and is appealable as of right, and because the applicant would have been within the 14 day appeal period had he been allowed to file his appeal when he issued his summons, the court extended time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of the order.
27 Aug 2020
Because the Court of Final Appeal held that refusal of an extension of time which effectively results in refusal of leave to apply for judicial review falls within Order 59 r21(1)(g) and is therefore appealable as of right, the applicant's summons issued within the 14-day period was not late; accordingly time for filing the notice of appeal is extended and the application will be dealt with on paper.
27 Aug 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal's rulings that a refusal of an extension of time that results in refusal of leave is appealable under Order 59 r21(1)(g), the court extended time and permitted the Applicant to file her notice of appeal within 14 days of the order; the prior requirement to issue a summons under s14AA was rendered inapplicable in this context.
27 Aug 2020
Given the Court of Final Appeal decisions that such refusals fall within Order 59 r21(1)(g) and are appealable as of right, and because the Applicant was within the 14‑day period, the court exercised discretion to extend time to file the notice of appeal; accordingly time is extended for filing the notice of appeal within 14 days of the order.
27 Aug 2020
Because the Court of Final Appeal has held that a refusal of an extension of time which inevitably leads to refusal of leave to apply for judicial review falls within Order 59 rule 21(1)(g) and is therefore appealable as of right (so section 14AA(1) does not bar an appeal), the applicant, who was within the 14-day appeal period, would not have been late; accordingly the court extended time to file the notice of appeal and allowed 14 days for filing.
8 Jul 2019
The court applied the settled rule that refusal to extend time for judicial review is interlocutory and appellate intervention requires identification of a legal error, reliance on irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, or that the decision was plainly wrong; absent such a showing the discretionary refusal should not be disturbed.
5 Dec 2014
The refusal to permit amendments that would introduce new claims was properly treated as an order determining substantive rights under RHC O 59 r 21 and therefore is appealable as of right (s 14AA(1) inapplicable); separately, there was no prospect of success in any intended appeal against the refusal of discovery, so leave to appeal on discovery is refused and costs in respect of that summons are ordered nisi against the plaintiff.