21 Jan 2022
Extension of time refused because the short delay (about eight days) did not overcome the dispositive factor that there was no realistic prospect of success: the Director and the Board found the risk low, threats were verbal and monetary, state protection and internal relocation were available, and the application could lawfully be disposed of on paper.
23 Mar 2021
The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the assertions of personal risk did not constitute a valid ground for judicial review or appeal, and there was no basis to admit new, fact-sensitive points or to exercise the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.
6 Dec 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b); his complaints were confined to his individual circumstances, the complaint about lack of an oral hearing was unarguable, the pending dependant visa was irrelevant, and there was no basis under the "otherwise" limb.
1 Apr 2019
The application for permission to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the proposed appeal raised any question of general or public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b); the rules permit determination on the papers and by two judges, and the earlier judgment already demonstrated the proposed appeal cannot succeed.
11 Dec 2015
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the formulated questions were fact‑specific and did not raise issues of great general or public importance, the defendant did not satisfy the high threshold under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b), and the matter is appropriately left for the Court of Final Appeal to consider itself; indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff because the defendant insisted on an oral hearing but advanced no oral arguments, causing wasted costs.