MH v The Minister for Justice and Equality (No.3)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IEHC 513 |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 788 JR] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 13 October 2020 |
[2020] IEHC 513
Max Barrett
[2018 No. 788 JR]
THE HIGH COURT
Deportation orders – Costs – Stay – Parties seeking costs – Whether a stay ought to be placed on any orders that the High Court may make in the proceedings
Facts: The respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, on 21 August 2018, issued a deportation order against the applicants. The deportation decision-making process was informed throughout by the notion that the first applicant was not her brother’s sister. Since that decision was made, she had taken a DNA test which had shown that she is her brother’s sister. On 22 July 2020, the High Court issued a judgment indicating that it would quash the deportation orders ([2020] IEHC 360). On 27 August 2020, the respondent sought leave to appeal the court’s judgment of 22 July to the Court of Appeal. On 2 September 2020, the court refused the leave sought ([2020] IEHC 436). The parties applied to the court for costs. The Department conceded that the first applicant had won overall but maintained that the respondent should be granted the extra costs incurred in dealing with the Chenchooliah dimension of this case (Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality Case C-94/18 [ECLI:EU:C:2019:693]). The respondent stated that it was its intention to apply to the Supreme Court for that court to hear an appeal. In that context, the respondent asked that the court place a stay on any orders that the court may make in the proceedings.
Held by Barrett J that the applicants came to court to vindicate their position at law, and succeeded in doing so, albeit not winning on every point. To the extent that the court awaited the Chenchooliah decision, which proved not to impact on the case in the end, it did not seem to Barrett J that anyone was to blame for that. It seemed to the court that the fairest way to proceed was to make no order as to costs in that respect. Mindful of what the court considered to be the needless suffering that was inflicted on the applicants in having to wait an unexplained 18 month period for a decision to issue after the respondent had all the information necessary to take that decision, the court declined to join in extending the suffering of mother and daughter and thus would not grant a stay on its orders of certiorari.
Barrett J held that the court would: (i) grant the orders of certiorari sought in respect of the deportation orders; (ii) make no order as to costs in respect of the Chenchooliah portion of the proceedings; and (iii) otherwise make an order for costs for the entirety of the High Court proceedings (both the judicial review proceedings and the unmeritorious leave to appeal application) in favour of the applicants.
Orders of certiorari granted. Order for costs made in favour of applicants.
This is an application for costs, and a stay on any orders that the court may make in these proceedings.
By way of recapitulation:
on 23 February 2017, the respondent wrote to Ms MH to indicate that she did not fulfil “the criteria in respect of a permitted family member as set out in Regulation 3(5) of the [EC (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015]”. Regulation 3(5) has nothing to do with those criteria. However, this decision was not challenged in time and so must stand. (Even so, one might have thought that such an error might have informed the respondent's stance in these proceedings, but it did not).
on 21 August 2018, the respondent issued a deportation order against the applicants. The deportation decision-making process was informed throughout by the notion that Ms MH was not her brother's sister. Since that decision was made, Ms MH has taken a DNA test which has shown that she is her brother's sister. That DNA test came after the decision of 21 August 2018. (Even so, one might have thought that it might have informed the respondent's stance in these proceedings, but it did not).
on 22 July 2020, the court issued a judgment (see [2020] IEHC 360) indicating that it would quash the deportation orders for the various reasons set out in that judgment;
on 27 August 2020, the respondent sought leave to appeal the court's judgment of 22 July...
To continue reading
Request your trial