S.M. v The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 417
• Docket Number: Record No. 2025/1744JR

Between

S. M.

Applicant

and

The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration

Respondent

[2026] IEHC 417

Record No. 2025/1744JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Family reunification – Delay – Interrogatories – Applicant seeking orders compelling replies to interrogatories – Whether the interrogatories raised were necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings

Facts: The applicant, a national of Somalia and a declared refugee, sought relief in respect of the delay of the respondent, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (the Minister), in processing his application for family reunification with his wife pursuant to s. 56 of the International Protection Act 2015. In opposing the proceedings, the Minister explained or justified the delay with reference to immigration or security checks with outside agencies which had not yet concluded. The matter came before the High Court by way of an application for orders compelling replies to particulars and/or interrogatories in circumstances where the Minister opposed the proceedings, inter alia, in reliance on “an orderly and rational system for consideration of applications made pursuant to s. 56 of the 2015 Act” and the Minister’s duty “to be satisfied that the application does not pose any risks to national security or public policy before granting permission to enter the State in accordance with s. 56” (para. 6 of the statement of opposition). In opening the application, counsel for the applicant accepted that the applicant did not require both replies to particulars and interrogatories and elected to proceed in respect of interrogatories only. The interrogatories which Phelan J was asked to direct answers to were appended in a schedule to her judgment.

Held by Phelan J that, having considered each interrogatory in turn, many of the interrogatories raised were necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings because they were directed to the factual basis of the Minister’s justification for delay, without which the Court would be asked to determine the case based on unparticularised and untested assertions. She found that most of the interrogatories raised went to the core facts underpinning the opposition to the proceedings and directly to the material issue in dispute, namely whether the delay was justified. She found that, by and large, the interrogatories raised did not seek unrelated material but responded directly to what the Minister had chosen to plead; as such, requiring answers to interrogatories was legitimate as a means of testing the factual foundation of the Minister’s own case. The answers to interrogatories which Phelan J would direct the Minister to respond to were interrogatories which Phelan J considered could support the applicant’s case by allowing him to test broad assertions to establish whether the delay in this case was necessary and proportionate; they also allowed the applicant, depending on the facts disclosed, the ability to expose potential gaps, inconsistencies or inactivity in the Minister’s explanation thereby strengthening the case he made or weakening the Minister’s opposition to the relief claimed. While it would be open to the applicant to pursue discovery for the same purposes, Phelan J was satisfied that the more appropriate, cost effective and time efficient approach was to direct answers to relevant and necessary questions raised by way of interrogatory.

Phelan J directed answers on affidavit to each interrogatory in the schedule except for nos. 13 and 14.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, delivered on the 26 ^th day of June, 2026

INTRODUCTION

1 . The Applicant is a national of Somalia and a declared refugee. In these proceedings, he seeks relief in respect of the delay of the Respondent (hereinafter “the Minister”) in processing his application for family reunification with his wife pursuant to s. 56 of the International Protection Act, 2015 (hereinafter “the 2015 Act”). This application is now pending for more than two years.

2 . In opposing these proceedings, the Minister explains or justifies the delay in processing the application with reference to immigration or security checks with outside agencies which have not yet concluded.

3 . By way of context, there are currently approximately 70 cases pending before the High Court involving delays in applications for family reunification under s. 56 of the 2015 Act in respect of family members (usually spouses and children, sometimes very young children) from countries such as Afghanistan and Somalia. Most of the countries involved in these cases are known to be unsafe (hence the grant of refugee status which triggers the entitlement to apply under s. 56). It is not unusual to see delays exceeding two years in these cases.

4 . Having granted leave to proceed by way of judicial review in many of these cases, I am aware that similar explanations for delay are offered in standardised or generic terms in most of these cases. As in this case, the Minister often, but not always, relies on immigration or security checks with outside agencies which have not yet concluded. In none of the many cases I have seen has the precise nature of the checks, whether a basis for them arises in the individual case and a timeframe for conclusion of these checks, been specified. Typically, however, an assurance is given that once checks have concluded a decision will issue. Accordingly, applicants are given no real information as to when they might expect a decision.

5 . This matter comes before me by way of an application for orders compelling replies to particulars and/or interrogatories in circumstances where the Minister opposes these proceedings, inter alia, in reliance on “ an orderly and rational system for consideration of applications made pursuant to s. 56 of the 2015 Act” and the Minister's duty “ to be satisfied that the application does not pose any risks to national security or public policy before granting permission to enter the Sate in accordance with s. 56” (para. 6 of Statement of Opposition).

6 . In opening the application, counsel for the Applicant accepted that the Applicant did not require both replies to particulars and interrogatories and elected to proceed in respect of interrogatories only. The interrogatories which I am asked to direct answers to are appended in a schedule to this judgment.

BACKGROUND

7 . The Applicant was granted a declaration of refugee status by the Minister on the 25 ^th of May, 2023. He thereafter became entitled to apply for family reunification pursuant to s. 56 of the 2015 Act in respect of qualifying family members.

8 . On the 6 ^th of September 2023, the Applicant applied for family reunification in respect of his wife. A questionnaire issued by the Minister on the 23 ^rd of October, 2023, which the Applicant duly completed and returned on the 21 ^st of February, 2024, together with supporting documentation including identity documents and evidence of the marital relationship.

9 . On the 27 ^th of March, 2025, the Minister replied to raise queries concerning, inter alia, the Applicant's marriage documentation and the sufficiency of evidence of the relationship. The Applicant responded to these queries on the 24 ^th of April, 2025, providing explanations and further supporting materials, including evidence of ongoing contact and financial support.

10 . Thereafter, the Minister continued to indicate that the application was under consideration and subject to ongoing checks. No clear timeframe for determination was provided. The Applicant characterises these communications as consisting of generalised or formulaic “ status updates” which did not meaningfully advance the application or explain the delay.

11 . In the light of the ongoing delay, the Applicant's solicitors issued a pre-action letter on the 25 ^th of September 2025, calling upon the Minister to determine the application within 21 days and asserting that the delay constituted a breach of the Applicant's constitutional rights and rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. A further letter issued on the 17 ^th of October, 2025, reiterating the complaint and requiring a decision within 14 days.

12 . Notwithstanding this correspondence, the Minister did not determine the application and continued to rely on the existence of ongoing processing and security checks. No substantive explanation for the length of the delay was provided.

13 . The Applicant subsequently initiated judicial review proceedings. Leave was granted on the 15 ^th of December, 2025. The Respondent delivered a Statement of Opposition on the 30 ^thof March, 2026, and a Verifying Affidavit on the 2 ^nd of April, 2026, asserting that the application remained subject to ongoing security checks.

14 . On the 23 ^rd of April, 2026, the Applicant served a Notice for Particulars and Interrogatories, directed to clarifying the factual basis of the Minister's pleaded opposition to proceedings, in particular the nature and scope of the asserted investigations and security checks.

15 . The Minister failed to reply to the Notice for Particulars or to answer the Interrogatories and did not deliver any notice of objection. A follow-up letter was issued on the 18 ^th of May 2026. No response was received on behalf of the Minister.

16 . In those circumstances, the Applicant has proceeded to bring the present motion seeking orders directing replies to the Notice for Particulars and answers to the Interrogatories (on affidavit). The Minister has not replied to this request in these proceedings and the first engagement with these requests, other than advising the Court that the application was being resisted in a call-over list, was the delivery of written submissions immediately before the application was heard.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

17 . Under s. 56 of the 2015 Act, the Minister must grant family reunification where the Applicant has...