14 Aug 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant had no prospect of success: he failed to comply with the court's skeleton argument requirement and thereby abandoned an oral hearing, and the Boards adverse credibility findings meant there were no arguable grounds for judicial review; the Deputy Judges reasons were adequate and involved no error of law.
19 Sept 2019
The court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review of the Director's and Board's non-refoulement determinations; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were within its discretion and there was no procedural impropriety by the Board or Deputy Judge, and the applicant's procedural defaults (including failure to lodge a skeleton argument) and lack of viable grounds rendered the application and appeal without merit.
5 Sept 2019
The applicants’ failure to lodge a skeleton argument as required justified vacating the oral hearing and proceeding on paper; on the available materials there was no arguable case of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness to justify leave for judicial review of the Director/Adjudicator/Board decisions, and where appeal to the Board was taken the Director’s decisions were not amenable to judicial review.
4 Apr 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory case management directions (failure to lodge skeleton arguments and abandonment of oral hearing), presented no arguable ground showing error in the Judge's refusal of leave, and the Court will not interfere with the Board's factual credibility and risk findings absent legal or procedural error.
3 Sept 2018
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant's grounds were largely vague or previously considered, the Director and Board's decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable nor legally erroneous, credibility findings were open on the record, the applicant failed to produce fresh COI or particulars before the Board or court, and procedural non-compliance (failure to lodge skeleton arguments) justified processing on paper; therefore there were no realistic prospects of success and leave was rightly refused.
4 Jun 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal raised no question of great general or public importance, the appeal was fact-sensitive and devoid of merit, and the applicant's procedural failures and explanations did not justify granting leave or rehearing.
14 Dec 2011
The court exercised its case management discretion to direct that the four appeals be heard together, vacated the earlier date, fixed a 6-day hearing, ordered consolidated written submissions with specified page limits and deadlines and allowed a limited reply for Big Island in CACV 160/2011; compliance with Practice Direction 4.1 was required subject to these modifications, and costs of the application were ordered in the cause.
11 May 2004
The judge held that Practice Direction 5.4's skeleton-argument requirement did not apply to a hearing listed for two hours; the adjournment was caused by the plaintiff's late filing of the 2nd affirmation without leave and therefore Master Levy was correct to order costs against the plaintiff; the appeal was dismissed with costs to the defendant.
13 Dec 2000
Adjournment refused because, despite non‑compliance with the Practice Direction, the late service did not prevent the Defendants' counsel from doing justice to the case: materials were not voluminous, counsel had adequate time to prepare, and no prejudice was shown.