GB v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan
• Judgment Date: 20 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 543
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2025/1073JR]

Between

GB

Applicant

and

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice Home Affairs and Migration, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

[2025] IEHC 543

[Record No. 2025/1073JR]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan delivered on the 20 ^th day of October 2025 .

Issues

1 . In the within proceedings which issued on 12 July 2025 leave was granted to the applicant on 15 July 2025. In the statement of grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the decision of the first named respondent (hereinafter “IPAT”) dated 02 July 2025 and further seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. The declarations sought are to the effect that Regulations 3(b) and 4(5) of the International Protection Act 2015 (Procedures and Periods for Appeals) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter “the 2017 Regulations”) are ultra vires and/or void. In the alternative a declaration is sought that Regulation 4(5) of the 2017 Regulations is ultra vires the 2015 Act and/or is unconstitutional and/or infringes the principle of legal certainty and/or the applicant's right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and/or a declaration pursuant to s.23 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 that the 2017 Regulations are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

2 . The applicant has pursued the within matter before the court in oral and written submissions on the basis:-

• (1) IPAT erred in its decision of 02 July 2025 in the implementation of the provisions of Regulation 4(5) of the 2017 Regulations or alternatively erred insofar as the finding that there were no special conditions;

• (2) in the event that it is found that IPAT correctly applied Regulation 4(5) then same is ultra vires the Council Directive 2015/85/EC of the European Council (hereinafter, “the Procedures Directive”) and in particular:-

  Article 15(2) thereof which provides that in the event of a negative decision by a determining authority, Member States shall ensure that free legal assistance and/or representation be granted on request and/or

  Article 39(1) which provides that Member States shall ensure that applicants for asylum had the right to an effective remedy.

  Article 39(2) has also been referenced by the respondents which provides that Member States shall provide for time limits and other necessary rules for the applicant to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy pursuant to para. 1.

Background

3 . The applicant herein is a Georgian national (Georgia has been identified as a safe country of origin by the State in Statutory Instrument 121/2018) who arrived in Ireland with his spouse and applied for internation protection on 30 May 2024.

4 . The applicant's application was refused on 29 July 2024 when the applicant was advised that he had ten working days to appeal.

5 . The applicant was initially represented by the Legal Aid Board who came on record for the applicant on 06 June 2024 however legal representation for the applicant transferred to his current solicitors on 09 August 2024 following agreement between the Legal Aid Board and current solicitors.

6 . The time within which to appeal the refusal aforesaid of 29 July 2024 expired on 13 August 2024. On that date the applicant's current solicitors submitted grounds of appeal and submissions indicating that a notice of appeal was not included but would be furnished as soon as possible. In the events it is common case that the notice of appeal was not submitted by the applicant's current solicitors until an email of 30 June 2025.

7 . On 15 August 2024 in an email from IPAT to the current solicitors, IPAT indicated that no notice of appeal was submitted and recommended that the solicitors would submit a duly completed notice of appeal without delay with any appeal submitted beyond the statutory deadline to be accompanied by a written request for an extension of time setting out the reasons why the solicitors or the applicant were unable to lodge a notice of appeal in the period prescribed in Regulation 3 of the 2017 Regulations.

8 . On 16 August 2024 the applicant completed the requisite notice of appeal and furnished same to his solicitors however this was not lodged with IPAT. Subsequent communications from IPAT to the applicant were not copied to the solicitor until after the service by the solicitor on IPAT on 30 June 2025 of a notice of appeal duly signed together with a consent for the solicitors to act on behalf of the applicant.

9 . On 25 March 2025 the applicant was served with a deportation order and was subsequently arrested on 29 June 2025.

10 . In the letter of the solicitors to IPAT of 30 June 2025 an application was made for an extension of time for the appeal to be accepted for consideration. In this submission it was noted that on 13 August 2024 the appeal submitted was not in the form however included a majority of the details required by the form. It is also recorded that on 16 August 2024 the applicant sent to the solicitors the signed appeal form, however the email was not seen and not submitted nor was there a reply to the Tribunal email of 15 August 2024. The solicitors indicated that they were not furnished with a copy of the Minister's refusal of 20 November 2024 or the deportation order of 25 March 2025 directly from the Department of Justice, however, the applicant did email copies of the documents to the solicitors which emails were not dealt with.

11 . It is stated that a significant increase in volume of email correspondence being received by the solicitor's office (of in and around 200 emails per day) has been noticed in recent times necessitating additional staff and other systems changes. It is said that the problem in the case came to the solicitor's attention on 30 June 2025 when the solicitors were contacted by the applicant's spouse and advised of his arrest. It was submitted that there was no prejudice to IPAT in allowing the appeal and that there were particular humanitarian grounds arising in the case (the applicant and his wife had a child on 09 July 2025).

12 . The solicitor further indicated that in IPAT's email of 15 August 2024 an appeal form was recommended but it was not stated it must be submitted. It is stated that the email refers to an explanation for the extension of time, however the solicitors were never informed that the appeal was invalid and therefore the starting position of the applicant was that he had a valid appeal pending since 13 August 2024 or in the alternative the solicitors are satisfied that special circumstances arise in the case to allow time to be extended.

13 . It might be noted that in submissions to this court Counsel the Applicant made additional submissions beyond those contained in the email of 30June, 2024.

14 . The response to the foregoing request was given in writing on 02 July 2025. Regulation 4(5) of the 2017 Regulations was set out. It is recorded that as per the applicant's solicitor's letter the deadline to furnish an appeal was 13 August 2024. The fact that the email from the applicant to his solicitor of 16 August 2024 was not seen is recorded in the decision and IPAT observed that no evidence of this has been provided. In relation to the refusal of the Minister on 20 November 2024 and subsequent deportation order of 25 March 2025 it is noted that the solicitor indicated that she had not received these documents from the Department although they were emailed to her office by the applicant together with other requests for updates, but these emails were not dealt with. IPAT states that the decisions presented a further indicator that there was no appeal pending before IPAT. IPAT indicated that the solicitor had stated that there was a significant increase in volume of email correspondence being received by the office in recent times and that as a result the solicitors had to take measures to deal with this. The decision went on to state:-

“Mere administrative or internal oversights are not considered by the Tribunal to meet the statutory threshold of ‘special circumstances’. For a situation to qualify as a special circumstance, there must be factors that go beyond routine mistakes or as in this case, procedural lapses.”

IPAT went on to note the humanitarian grounds referenced and the submission that there was no prejudice to IPAT and states:-

“The Tribunal is of the view that the legislation, as set out above, sets out a cumulative test and both limbs must be satisfied.”

On the basis of the foregoing, the conclusion was to the effect that it was the onus of the applicant to satisfy IPAT that the test had been met however based on all the information before the IPAT it was found that this test was not met and it refused to extend the prescribed period.

The 2017 Regulations

15 . These regulations were made pursuant to s.77 of the International Protection Act, 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) It is recorded in the title of the 2017 Regulations that same were made “having regard to the need to observe fair procedures and the need to ensure efficient conduct of the business of the Tribunal.”

16 . Regulation 3(b) of the 2017 Regulations provides that the period prescribed to maintain an appeal is ten working days for the purposes of s.22(8) of the 2015 Act, which is accepted by the parties as being applicable to the within proceedings.

Under Regulation 4(5) the test for an extension of time is set out as follows:-

“The Tribunal shall not extend the prescribed period except where it is satisfied that —

• (a) the applicant has demonstrated that there were special circumstances as to why the notice of appeal was submitted after the prescribed period had expired and,

• (b) in the circumstances concerned, it would be unjust not to extend the prescribed period.”

Under Regulation 5(1) an appeal shall be made by notice in writing and shall be in the relevant...