16 Mar 2023
Because the applicant expressly consented to the dismissal of her leave application by withdrawing it, there was nothing outstanding to appeal and the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal; the application for appeal out of time is dismissed.
21 Jul 2022
Extension of time refused because the applicant gave no valid reason for the delay and had no realistic prospect of success in the intended judicial review given the Board's findings rejecting his non-refoulement claim; applying the factors in AW and the authority in Re Adumekwe the application could not be justified.
22 Feb 2022
The applicant voluntarily withdrew his leave application and the court has no jurisdiction under Order 53 or other Rules of the High Court to re-open a dismissed leave application; accordingly the application to re-open is dismissed.
14 Jul 2020
A refusal to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review is part and parcel of, and leads to, a refusal of leave; such a refusal falls within RHC O.59 r.21(1)(g) and therefore does not require leave under s.14AA to be appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decision in MI to the contrary is overruled in that respect.
20 May 2020
The writ was legally misconceived because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking to overturn its own final judgment; if the applicant sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal no leave was required under Order 59 r21(2)(b); accordingly the writ was revoked and the application dismissed.
24 Jun 2015
The abandonment and consequent dismissal were valid and not a nullity because the applicant signed the notice of abandonment and there was no evidence his mind did not go with the act; accordingly the Court refused to treat the abandonment as a nullity and refused to re-open the appeal; the Court lacks jurisdiction to reopen except where abandonment is a nullity or under s83P CPO.
16 Sept 2009
The plaintiff is entitled as of right to appeal only in respect of management fees pertaining to it; the Court correctly refused to treat the value of an underlying proprietary right as the relevant value under s.22(1)(a), and refused discretionary leave on the pipe and injunction issues because they do not raise questions of general public importance and are undermined by concurrent adverse factual findings (including that the pipe caused no loss).
22 Mar 2006
The application was refused because the applicants lacked sufficient interest to bring the judicial review (their interest was commercial and not directly a planning interest), and on the merits the Board did not err in law or fail to take relevant matters into account because there was no material before it to show the asphalt plant was not a genuine temporary use and the Board properly exercised its discretionary planning power.
28 Apr 2005
The renewed application was incompetent because the initial refusal had been made after an open court hearing by a single judge (Rogers VP), so Order 59 r 14(2A) did not permit renewal; accordingly the renewed application and resulting judgment were nullities and not appealable, and even if not a nullity HLF precludes an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave.
30 May 2003
The FDO acted beyond his statutory powers by confirming the four individual awards and then imposing, in addition, a global terminatory award; regulation 14 does not permit imposing an additional award after confirmation nor permit a single global award across separate charges; accordingly the additional terminatory award is ultra vires and must be quashed by certiorari while the four individual awards as confirmed remain valid.