26 Jan 2026
The court acceded to the applicant's withdrawal after he obtained a dependant visa and dismissed the application for leave as there was nothing outstanding; the Form 86 was amended to name only the TCAB as respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.
25 Nov 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds demonstrating an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's reasons; the Board's decision was a lawful, rational exercise of its remit and satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard, and therefore there were no realistic prospects of success to justify granting leave.
7 Nov 2025
The application for leave was dismissed and extension of time refused because the Form 86 was filed 3 days out of time without explanation, the intended challenge lacked merit as the Board's factual findings were within its discretion and supported by evidence, and no arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified; consequentially the putative respondent was amended to the NRCPO and the Director of Immigration was named a putative interested party.
28 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to provide any arguable grounds, the Board's Decision contained adequate reasons and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality under the applicable enhanced Wednesbury standard, and the application was not reasonably arguable; the court amended Form 86 to correctly name the Board as Putative Respondent and the Director as Putative Interested Party.
27 Aug 2025
Because the applicant validly sought to withdraw the leave application and there is no indication of coercion, the challenge to the Board's decision became moot; consequently the court dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits and amended Form 86 to correct party names.
13 Aug 2025
Form 86 was amended to name the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as putative interested party; the Board's decision of 5 June 2020 disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the applicant's claim was essentially a private financial dispute unsupported by credible evidence of risk or lack of state protection, and therefore the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success — leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
13 Jun 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's Decision met the applicable enhanced Wednesbury standard and the court will not usurp the Board's role in assessing evidence and risk; the court ordered the Form amended to name the Board as putative respondent and the Director as putative interested party.