Abbas v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 23 July 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 489
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 379 J.R.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 23 July 2018

[2018] IEHC 489

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Humphreys J.

[2018 No. 379 J.R.]

BETWEEN

SEYDA SHAISTA ABBAS

AND

SYED HUSSAIN ABBAS

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

Asylum & immigration – Freedom of movement – Visa – Application for visa for brother of EU national

Facts: The first applicant was a British national resident in the state. Her brother applied for a visa relying on Directive 2004/38/EC. The applicants had sought leave for judicial review compelling a decision to be made on the application. A grant of mandamus was made, and the sole matter to be resolved was costs.

Held by Humphreys J, that the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence was to be followed and no order for costs to made. Cunningham v President of the Circuit Court [2012] IESC 39, Godsil v Ireland [2015] IESC 103 and Matta v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 45 considered.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the day of 23rd July, 2018

1 The first-named applicant is a British national exercising her EU law rights in Ireland. The second-named applicant is her brother, living in Pakistan. On 25th September, 2017 an application was made for a visa for the second-named applicant. The applicants rely on the free movement directive 2004/38/EC, which provides that an application of this nature should be dealt with as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.

2 On 12th February, 2018 a change of address was notified. On 14th February, 2018 the respondent sought further information from the first-named applicant. On 8th March, 2018 a reply was received in that regard.

3 On 24th April, 2018 a letter of demand was sent by the applicants' solicitors, also including a number of enclosures and running in total to 20 pages. The respondent complains that the letter was both a fourteen-day warning letter and was also providing additional information that needed to be assessed. On 9th May, 2018, the application was refused but the applicants were not immediately notified of that. On 14th May, 2018, leave in the present proceedings was granted, the primary relief being mandamus to make a decision on the application. On 18th May, 2018 the refusal was notified to the second named applicant.

4 As the substantive relief relates to mandamusto make a decision that has already been made, the matter is now moot so the only question is costs. Both sides seek their costs against each other.

5 I have received helpful submissions from Mr. Ian Whelan B.L. for the applicants and Ms. Silvia Martinez B.L. for the respondent.

6 Mr. Whelan's express submission was that ‘ I don't accept that there has to be a causal nexus’ between the institution of the proceedings and the matter becoming moot. Unfortunately, this does not chime...