9 Dec 2019
Because the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time and did not establish reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review or non‑refoulement protection, the court treated the failure as abandonment of the right to an oral hearing, proceeded to consider the appeal on the papers and dismissed the challenge to the Board's and judge's decisions.
31 May 2016
The Applicant failed to meet the high threshold of demonstrating flagrant improper behaviour by the Adjudicator; the Adjudicator's refusal to hold an oral hearing and decision to proceed on available materials, while possibly wrong, was not an obvious or blatant error; therefore the usual rule applies and there is no order as to costs against the Adjudicator/Board, save the Applicant's own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
31 May 2013
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because it was arguable the adjudicator omitted to consider relevant country conditions and the question of state acquiescence to extremist violence and the director overlooked the applicant's Case Letter, such omissions amounted to failures to take into account relevant considerations and raised an arguable error of law justifying judicial review; anonymity was extended and costs reserved.