[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
Page 1 ⇓
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
[2019] IEHC 856
[2016 No. 834 J.R.]
BETWEEN
SHIV ANAND RAGHOO AND MARIE JOELLE MILEINE RAGHOO
APPLICANTS
AND
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT of Mr.Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 10th day of December
2019
1. The situation in this case is slightly unusual in the sense that, shortly before the hearing
date of 10th December, 2019, the applicants were each given a two-year permission to
remain in the State on 4th December, 2019 pursuant to the “Special Scheme for students
from 01/01/05 to 31/12/10”, which was a procedure that was put in place
administratively following the Supreme Court decision in Luximon and Balchand v.
2. The substantive relief sought in the judicial review is a claim for orders of certiorari
quashing the two deportation orders dated 23rd September, 2016 against each of the
applicants. That no longer arises since the applicants have now been given permission to
remain, so the outstanding issue is one of costs.
3. Mr. Conor Power S.C. (with Mr. Ian Whelan B.L.) for the applicants applies for costs. Ms.
Sylvia Martinez B.L. for the respondent says there should be no order as to costs.
4. In M.K.I.A. (Palestine) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 134
[2018] 2 JIC 2708 (Unreported, High Court, 27th February, 2018) I attempted to
summarise the Supreme Court jurisprudence in relation to the costs of moot proceedings
[2016] IESC 45 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 26th July, 2016) (Mac Menamin J.)). What
we have in this situation is the proceedings becoming moot due to the act of the Minister
in giving the applicants permission, which was essentially the objective they were driving
at in the proceedings. There is a relatively close analogy here to Godsil v. Ireland, where
the applicants have essentially succeeded in obtaining what they were looking for through
the medium of litigation, and there does appear to be a sufficient nexus with the litigation
in all the circumstances for the court to adopt the default order in such a situation of an
order for costs against the party whose act has rendered the proceedings moot.
5. Consequently, the order will be an order for the applicants’ costs, including reserved
costs, against the respondent.
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019IEHC856.html
