5 Feb 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave with sufficient particulars and relied on bare, unsupported assertions; under Nupur Mst the Court of Appeal will not re‑examine the merits of the Board's decision absent viable grounds to reverse the judge's decision.
16 Dec 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant had not appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s37ZR(b) and had not undergone the required second-tier screening under the Unified Screening Mechanism, so there was no legal or procedural basis for judicial review at this stage.
31 Oct 2025
The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particularity any error of law by the Judge in upholding the Board’s decision; bare allegations and re‑assertions of disagreement do not meet the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review.
28 Aug 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particularity any legal error in the Deputy Judge's assessment that the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; absent an error of law, failure to consider relevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision, the Court will not disturb the refusal of leave.
30 Jul 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b), failed to identify any error or viable ground of appeal in the CA judgment, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the Notice of Motion for leave was dismissed.
25 Apr 2025
The application for permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific administrative decision amenable to judicial review, filed incoherent and disordered materials that did not disclose any arguable public‑law error by the proposed respondents, and sought relief not properly within the scope of judicial review; accordingly there was no real prospect of success.
8 Jun 2023
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants failed to point to any error in the Court of Appeal's decision and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) (nor any basis under the 'or otherwise' limb); therefore leave was not justified.
8 Mar 2023
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, did not show any reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and no basis existed to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.
29 Aug 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, raised no reasonably arguable error of law in this court's judgment or in the underlying decision‑making, and advanced no basis under the 'otherwise' limb of section 22(1)(b) Cap 484.
6 May 2022
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, and no arguable ground was shown under the "otherwise" limb.