21 May 2026
Extension of time to appeal refused because the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for a two-month delay and there was no realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal; the Court found no error in the earlier decision and the intended challenge was hopeless.
29 Apr 2026
Refused extension because the delay of over five months was substantial and inordinate, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or a reliable address for service and must bear the consequences, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success after application of enhanced Wednesbury review; granting an extension would prejudice the respondent.
2 Apr 2026
Refusal to grant leave to appeal out of time because the applicant's delay of 3 years and 8 months was inordinate, the applicant failed to provide proposed grounds or identify any error in the decision so there was no reasonable prospect of success, and granting an extension would be futile and prejudicial.
10 Mar 2026
Extension of time refused because the applicant offered no explanation for the one-day delay and there were no arguable grounds of appeal or realistic prospects of success; the applicant's submissions only reasserted facts rejected by the Board and did not establish error of law or procedural unfairness.
25 Feb 2026
Extension refused because, despite the short four‑day delay, the applicant failed to provide a credible explanation; the order and decision had been posted to his last known address and not returned; the applicant filed no grounds for appeal so the intended appeal lacked bona fides; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to extend time and dismissed the summons.
30 Jan 2026
Refusal to extend time: applicant gave no valid explanation for the roughly two‑week delay and the intended appeal has no realistic prospect of success because the Court correctly reviewed and found no error in the Board's decision; therefore extension of time is refused and the application dismissed.
30 Jan 2026
Short delay alone does not justify extension; because the applicant advanced no arguable grounds and the Board and Court decisions showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality and there were no realistic prospects of success, the court refused to extend time for appeal.
20 Jan 2026
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; accordingly leave was refused.
5 Jan 2026
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raises a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
5 Jan 2026
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) or that there were prospects of success; no oral hearing was required and the matter could be decided on the papers.