17 Mar 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for a substantial delay (over 12 months) in seeking leave and has not shown any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that would justify overturning the Judge's refusal of leave.
11 Jul 2025
Permission to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable grounds, relied on unsubstantiated serious allegations, many of the claimed remedies were non-justiciable or appropriate for other fora, and there was no basis to restrain the hospital or compel the respondents as sought; consequentially no relief granted and no order as to costs.
27 Dec 2024
The summonses were dismissed because the petitioner unreasonably delayed and failed to warn the alleged funders/directing parties, produced no evidence that the directors were the real parties or personally benefited from continuing the litigation, failed to establish serious impropriety causatively linked to unnecessary costs, and could not recover costs for conduct after the automatic stay; exercise of discretion under s.52A in these circumstances was unjustified.
22 Aug 2024
Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant was approximately nine and a half months out of time without any satisfactory explanation, his failure to update his address and to comply with court directions amounted to abuse of process and lack of intention to prosecute, and alternatively the Board’s Decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
17 Jan 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other cogent reason to depart from the restrictive test in s63A Cap.336; her key interlocutory applications were significantly and unjustifiably delayed, inconsistent, and/or irrelevant to the pending ancillary relief hearing, so the summons dated 27 November 2023 was dismissed and the interim maintenance order remained in force.
12 Apr 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's s37ZO decision; the immigration officer lawfully and fairly concluded there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success, and the applicant's delay and prior conduct amounted to abuse of process.
21 Mar 2023
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applications disclosed no arguable grounds of fact or law, were largely out of time where applicable, consisted of incoherent and irrelevant material that could not form the basis of a proper appeal, and the interlocutory/case‑management orders complained of had been superseded by the final substantive custody judgment; accordingly there was no real prospect of success and leave was refused and costs ordered.
6 Jan 2023
The appeal is dismissed because Poon's witness statement was neither relevant to the core issues nor of probative value, its provenance and reliability were doubtful and unexplained, the Defendant failed to justify the long delay in producing the witness, and the application constituted a dilatory tactic contrary to case management objectives; admission would prejudice the efficient conduct of the case.
24 Nov 2022
Despite acknowledging the significant and largely unexplained delays (approximately 20–28 months across the four matters), the judge exercised discretion to grant leave because on the material before the court there were prima facie serious breaches capable of supporting committal, the delay did not demonstrably preclude a fair hearing at this stage, and the proper impact of delay should be assessed at the substantive hearing; accordingly leave to apply for committal and accompanying anonymity orders were granted and costs reserved.
5 Aug 2022
Applicant's application for extension was refused because he provided no satisfactory explanation for the 20-day delay, failed to comply with directions and produce evidence of Covid-19 or non-receipt, there were no arguable grounds for judicial review on rigorous scrutiny of the Board's Decision, and granting an extension would prejudice the respondent and public administration and risk abuse of the non-refoulement system.