GT v International Protection Appeals Tribunal and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Marguerite Bolger
• Judgment Date: 26 August 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 473
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2025 367 JR]

Between

GT

Applicant

and

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Chief International Protection Officer, The Minister for Justice and The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

Respondents

[2025] IEHC 473

[Record No. 2025 367 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

Security for costs – Judicial review – International protection – Respondents seeking security for costs – Whether there was a greater risk of injustice

Facts: The respondents, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, the Chief International Protection Officer, the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, applied to the High Court for security for costs in the amount of €15,000 in relation to the applicant’s application for leave to judicially review “both the decision of the IPO of 18 February 2025 refusing his application pursuant to s. 22 of the International Protection Act 2015 for the Minister’s consent to make a subsequent application for international protection, and the decision of IPAT of 13 March 2025, refusing his appeal” (GT v IPAT & Ors [2025] IEHC 220, para. 2). The application was due to be heard on notice to the respondents. The respondents sought an order for security for costs pursuant to O. 29, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and relied on the applicant's conduct in not challenging decisions when made and what they described as the applicant’s drip-feeding approach, as a result of which they believed the applicant would seek to ignore any costs ultimately made against him. The applicant accepted, for the purpose of the application, that he was residing outside the jurisdiction and accepted that the respondents had a prima facie defence to the judicial review proceedings. However, the applicant contended that the Court must balance the respondents’ right to costs in the event of his judicial review being unsuccessful, against his right to access the courts. He submitted that there were special circumstances in the case that tilted the balance of justice against the granting of an order for security for costs, including that the sum sought, which he acknowledged represented less than the likely amount of a full costs order, would nevertheless represent an absolute bar to an impecunious applicant such as he was, who sought to challenge an impugned decision; granting security for costs would exclude any benefit for him in having the impugned appeal quashed and reconsidered.

Held by Bolger J that the fact of the applicant’s residence outside the jurisdiction did not automatically entitle a respondent with a bona fide defence to an order for security for costs. The Court needed to determine “which course of action runs the least risk of injustice” (as per Clarke C.J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2021] IESC 15 at 9.1). Bolger J was satisfied that the applicant’s circumstances, including his impecuniosity and his inability to provide the security for costs, was such that to impose the security sought would in effect determine his judicial review proceedings and prevent him from challenging the deportation order that had led to him residing outside of the jurisdiction and from exercising the options potentially available to him in the event of a successful judicial review and on which the decision to refuse the injunction was, in part, based. Bolger J held that there was, therefore, a greater risk of injustice in making an order for security for costs which would prevent the application for leave to seek judicial review reliefs.

Bolger J refused the respondents’ application for security for costs.

Application refused.

Counsel for the applicant: Anthony Hanrahan SC, Siobhan Clabby BL.

Counsel for the respondents: David Conlan Smyth SC, Sarah Cooney BL.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Marguerite Bolger delivered on the 26 ^th day of August 2025 .

1 . This is the respondents' application for security of the costs in the amount of €15,000 in relation to the applicant's application for leave to judicially review “both the decision of the IPO of 18 February 2025 refusing his application pursuant to s. 22 of the International Protection Act 2015 for the Minister's consent to make a subsequent application for international protection, and the decision of IPAT...