8 Nov 2024
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to update his address and therefore his explanation for a 19-day delay was unjustified; moreover the proposed grounds were bare assertions without particulars or evidence and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, so leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was denied.
27 Oct 2023
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to justify the delay (address change not notified) and, critically, the intended appeal was unarguable: no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified in the JR Decision and there was no realistic prospect of success, making an extension futile.
3 May 2021
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to give an acceptable explanation for the delay in appealing, the proposed appeal lacked any reasonable prospect of success on the merits, the applicant's changed circumstances did not alter that conclusion, and it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
3 May 2021
Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the 63‑day delay, the court file indicated proper service at the address then given, no grounds of appeal or prospects of success were shown, and in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension.
25 Sept 2020
Extension of time refused because applicant provided an unacceptable and unsupported explanation for the delay, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as it sought effectively to re-argue the merits, and on balance the statutory factors (length of delay, reasons, prospects, prejudice) did not favour granting an extension.
24 Jul 2020
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the delay and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success since no arguable grounds for judicial review of the underlying decisions were demonstrated; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
25 Sept 2019
The court refused the application for extension of time because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and prompt explanation for the delay, breached his duty to give a correct address for service, and his underlying judicial review had no arguable merit; therefore it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension and the summons was dismissed.
26 Oct 2018
The summons for relief from sanction was dismissed because the application was out of time under Order 2 rule 4 RHC, the applicant provided no sworn evidence or credible explanation for non-receipt of correspondence despite using the same address, failed to comply with court directions and practice rules, offered no plan to comply with the unless order, and the proposed appeal disclosed no arguable error and thus had no prospects of success; the court refused to exercise its discretion to grant relief.