M.K.I.A. (Palestine) v The International Protection Appeals

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 27 February 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 134
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 740 J.R.]
• Date: 27 February 2018

BETWEEN

M.K.I.A. (PALESTINE)

AND

C.Z.

APPLICANTS

AND

THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

[2018] IEHC 134

Humphreys J.

[2017 No. 740 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Practice & Procedures – Costs – Moot procedures – Issuance of residence card – Identification of event.

Facts: In the present application, the issue pertained to the award of costs. The parties sought an order for the costs against each other. The first named applicant was granted a residence card by the second named respondent which had rendered the present proceedings moot.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys held that there would be no order as to the costs. The Court held that the discretion that existed under o.99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts should have been exercised within certain limits. The Court further held that the proceedings became moot as the first named applicant had filed an application before the second named respondent for the issuance of a residency card, which was granted by the second respondent; however, it had no nexus with the present proceedings, and thus, the Court should make no order as to the costs.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 27th day of February, 2018

1 At the risk of over-simplification, the facts in this case can be summarised as follows. The first named applicant applied for asylum in the State on 25th September, 2016. It was decided to transfer the application to another EU State. That decision was affirmed on appeal by the tribunal on 9th August, 2017. In the meantime on 28th July, 2017 the first named applicant applied for residency based on his marriage to the second named applicant, an EU national. On 2nd October, 2017 the proceedings were instituted, at a time when the EU residence card application was pending, so the applicants knew at all times that the proceedings could be overtaken by that development. On 15th January, 2018 the Minister accepted the application for residency, rendering the proceedings moot.

2 The issue now is costs and I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. David Leonard B.L. for the applicants and Mr. Anthony McBride B.L. for the respondents.

Principles in relation to costs of moot proceedings

3 It seems to me that the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Cunningham v. President of the Circuit Court [2012] IESC 39 [2012] 3 I.R. 222, Godsil v. Ireland [2015] IESC 103 [2015] 4 I.R. 535 and Matta v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IESC 45 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 26th July, 2016) (MacMenamin J.) are the operative ones. Particular pains were taken in both Godsil and Matta to attempt to ensure that those principles were seen as having priority over previous approaches to costs. McKechnie J. made the point in Godsil that ' In some of the cases mentioned in argument, the issue of costs seems to have been determined in a number of ways or, on occasion, even within the same case, by a variety of means', referring to Garibov v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2006] IEHC 371 (Unreported, Herbert J., 16th November, 2006) where the emphasis...