The High Court has ruled that a mother and her minor son are entitled to costs after their judicial review proceedings over his immigration status became moot. The court found it was reasonable to bring the case, but left final orders for a later mention.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger on 20 March 2024, concerned proceedings challenging the refusal of permission to remain for the child, identified in the judgment as J.I.D. He was born in Ireland in September 2020. His mother, M.D., had been granted permission to remain in September 2022. The judgment says she incorrectly assumed this covered her son as well.
The Minister for Justice refused the child’s application on 10 November 2022. A deportation order was made on 8 February 2023 but was never served. The mother and son sought to have the refusal quashed and to compel the Minister to decide the child’s application as her dependent child.
The Minister argued that proceedings were unreasonable because a letter of 14 December 2022 indicated the child might later receive permission to remain and that the order would not be enforced. The judge rejected that reading. She said the correspondence made clear that a deportation order would be made, while any consideration of a future right to remain would come later. An earlier letter said the child should leave voluntarily or be deported, and that a served order would require him to leave and remain outside the State indefinitely.
The mother said she feared that she and her son would have to leave for Georgia and that the child would be excluded. The applicants also argued that the refusal did not explain how the Minister had considered the child’s family and personal circumstances, including his dependence on his mother.
On 19 April 2023, after the proceedings had been mentioned in court to stop time but before the leave application was made, the Minister revoked the deportation order under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999. The parties agreed that this made the case moot. The Minister said she did not know about the proceedings when the order was revoked. Justice Bolger said she did not need to decide whether the revocation was connected to the proceedings.
In awarding costs, the judge said the court had to consider whether it was reasonable to start the case in the circumstances then facing the family. She noted the serious consequences a deportation order could have and the absence of an adequate explanation for the refusal. She said the applicants were entitled to their costs.
The judge’s indicative view was that the costs should include the costs of the costs application itself. The matter was listed for mention on 16 April 2024 to make final orders.