Djamba & Ors -v- The Minister for Justice and Equality, [2017] IEHC 280 (2017)

Docket Number:2017 324 JR
Party Name:Djamba & Ors, The Minister for Justice and Equality
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW [2017 No. 324 J.R.]

BETWEEN

DJAMBA AND OTHERSAPPLICANTSAND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORMRESPONDENT

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O’Regan delivered on the 8th day of May, 2017

  1. The applicants herein are seeking leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the respondent notified to the applicants on 31st March 2017 to the effect that the first named applicant is no longer entitled to apply for family reunification in respect of the second to fifth applicants, all of whom are minors.

  2. The grounds supporting the application are to the effect that by virtue of s. 27 of the Interpretation Act 2005 the repeal of the relevant subsidiary protection Regulations (Statutory Instrument 426 of 2013) by s. 6 (2) (n) of the International Protection Act of 2015 does not affect the first applicant’s right to apply for family reunification that was acquired or accrued under the 2013 Regulations without being subject to a time limit of twelve months.

  3. Written submissions have been tendered. These identify that since the coming into force of the International Protection Act 2015 there is now a time limit of twelve months from the given, under s. 47, of the refugee declaration, or, as the case may be, subsidiary protection declaration, to the sponsor to apply for family reunification by virtue of s. 56 (8) of the 2015 Act. The first applicant’s argument was to the effect that he was granted subsidiary protection in February 2015 at which time there was no time limit within which he might make the application the subject matter of the impugned decision of 31st March 2017.

  4. The applicant relies upon s. 27 (1) (c) of the Interpretation Act 2005 which provides that where an enactment is repealed the repeal does not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired accrued or accord under the enactment.

  5. The applicants rely on the U.K. Court of Appeal judgment in Chief Adjudicating Officer and another v. Maguire [1999] 1 WLR 1778 where the applicant was seeking a special hardship allowance however before he made his claim and within the period during which he was permitted to make same the statute providing for the benefit was repealed. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefits nevertheless. The court did indicate that within the period permitted to move the claim a distinction between what is and what is not a right must often be one of great finesse. Any hope or expectation...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL