The High Court allowed an anonymised asylum applicant to amend her judicial review statement of grounds to include a challenge to findings made by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The ruling addressed the pleadings only; it did not decide whether the Tribunal’s decision should be quashed.
The applicant’s asylum claim was rejected by the Tribunal in a decision dated 15 March 2012, sent under cover of a letter dated 22 March 2012. At the judicial review hearing, her lawyers challenged findings that she had not produced supporting evidence, including newspaper evidence, and that the date on her husband’s death certificate—recorded as the same day he died—was suspect. They argued those findings were unfair, erroneous or irrational.
The case was heard on 3 and 4 November 2015 on a “telescoped” basis, meaning the hearing also constituted the trial of the action. Counsel for the State argued that the points advanced were not properly pleaded and that some were absent from the written submissions. The applicant’s counsel said the points were already covered or were a permissible elaboration, and sought an amendment if necessary.
On 6 November, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave a preliminary ruling that an amendment was required to present the applicant’s oral argument fully. He considered whether the proposed ground was arguable, whether there was an explanation for its omission, and whether allowing it would cause irremediable prejudice.
The judge found substantial grounds to argue the proposed point, while expressly leaving open whether it would ultimately justify substantive relief. He accepted that the applicant’s lawyers had believed the existing pleadings were adequate, or had mistakenly failed to appreciate that they were not. He also found no real prejudice to the State: the amendment raised a point of law and required no further evidence. The written submissions had given the State advance notice of the substance of the argument.
The court’s order allowed the applicant to amend her statement of grounds to include the proposed ground, set a time for delivery of the amended statement, and reserved costs. The judgment, delivered on 17 November 2015, gave reasons for the preliminary ruling. The source does not specify the deadline set for the amended statement.