6 May 2026
A six day delay did not justify extension because the applicants' intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's unchallenged adverse credibility and fact findings that the claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly extension of time was refused and the joint application dismissed.
29 Apr 2026
Extension of time was refused because the three-day delay was not justified by the reasons given (public holidays are included in the 14-day period and lack of legal assistance is not a valid excuse), and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the Board and Director concluded the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated; accordingly the application for extension and the appeal were dismissed.
29 Apr 2026
The court refused to extend time and dismissed the application because the applicants' intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success, the Board's findings that the non-refoulement claims were unsubstantiated were not shown to be challengeable, and the court's service by ordinary post was valid leading to deemed receipt; accordingly no extension of time was justified.
8 Apr 2026
The court held that service by ordinary post to the registered office and other addresses was valid (none of the mail was returned and the defendant attended the hearing), the defendant had notice and opportunity to produce the material, the appeal period was extended as a discretionary matter, and there was no legal error or unreasonableness in the hearing officer's costs assessment; therefore the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
21 Jan 2026
Refusal of extension of time was justified because the applicant was late by six days, failed to provide a valid reason such as notifying detention or a change of address to excuse the delay, the court's decision was properly served and she was deemed to have received it, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that the creditor lacked intent to kill or harm, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable; accordingly extension was refused and the application dismissed.
16 Sept 2025
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than two months late, provided no valid reason for the delay or for not receiving the Court's decision which was sent to his last known address, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings of unsubstantiated evidence and viable internal relocation.
16 Jan 2025
Service by ordinary post was ultimately proven to comply with Order 65 r5 after acceptance of a supplemental affirmation showing use of the firm's private franking machine; the defendant failed to prove non-receipt on the balance of probabilities; the defendant, however, demonstrated a real prospect of success because the judicial review grounds were reasonably arguable and therefore the court exercised its residual discretion to set aside the Order 14 judgment; limited prejudice to the plaintiff from setting aside was established and the defendant did not seek restoration of possession.
24 Jul 2024
Default judgment was regularly obtained by postal service but the 10th Defendant satisfied the real prospect test: his affidavits, prior credible findings in related litigation, unresolved allegations of forgery and gaps in the plaintiff's documentary/hearsay evidence (notably unexplained absence of the bank officer Jason's own affidavit and inconsistencies about confirmations and execution of facility documents) together established a defence with a real prospect of success such that the default judgment must be set aside unconditionally.
3 May 2024
裁判官的事實裁斷合理：上訴人未能在相對可能性標準下說服法院其較大可能沒有收到通知書；即使未收到，因上訴人過往多次未收到郵件卻未作任何跟進，屬疏忽，故不符合第16A(1)撤銷命令的要件；上訴法院重審後認為無可爭議性錯誤，駁回上訴。
19 Oct 2023
The judge found the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that she did not receive the notice through her own negligence because she admitted a long history of missing mail yet took no reasonable steps (eg change address, contact post office or building management), so the s3A(1) order was properly maintained and the appeal dismissed.