No good or sufficient reason to extend time to judicially review decision to refuse asylum to Congo national

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – substantive hearing - national of the Democratic Republic of Congo challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal to refuse him refugee status - International Protection Appeals Tribunal substituted for Refugee Appeals Tribunal pursuant to newly commenced legislation - application to extend time – 28 days from notification of decision - no application for an extension of time made at leave hearing – duty not to mislead the court - genuine error - good and sufficient reason for extending time – whether the merits of the case are irrelevant to the question of whether there is good and sufficient reason for extending time to bring these proceedings – Court determined it was appropriate to consider the extension of time issue in conjunction with the substantive application for judicial review -feared persecution on account of his political opinion and membership of, and involvement with, the UDPS political party - family home was attacked three times – beaten - did not receive any assistance from the authorities - moved to another part of the country – attacked there - attacked in their home - brother was shot dead - believes that his mother and sister were raped and then kidnapped – tribunal made adverse credibility findings - standard of proof – High Court previously determined that it should be the balance of probabilities, coupled with, where appropriate, the benefit of the doubt – judicial comity – argued that the tribunal failed to apply the benefit of the doubt properly when assessing the evidence – not pleaded – tribunal was not satisfied as to his general credibility - accordingly, the necessary condition precedent to the application of the benefit of the doubt was not present – argued that the tribunal failed to have adequate regard for the notice of appeal and country of origin information - unnecessary to require a decision-maker to decide on every such element where an adverse finding has been made in respect of one, save in exceptional circumstances – argued that the tribunal incorrectly assessed his credibility – principles for the assessment of credibility – credibility findings were lawful - no good or sufficient reason to extend time.