The High Court has restrained the Minister for Justice from implementing a decision to pause Immigrant Investor Programme applications handled by Aidan T Stapleton Solicitors, pending the trial of the firm’s judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Barr granted the interlocutory injunction on 26 March 2025, ruling that it would take effect immediately. The order lasts until the trial of the judicial review. It does not determine whether the Minister’s decision was lawful; that issue remains for the substantive proceedings.
The Minister’s department emailed the solicitor on 15 November 2024, saying it would pause processing all IIP applications from the firm while a complaint was being examined. The complaint had been made to the Legal Services Regulatory Authority by a person who said he represented Chinese investors. It alleged that a former partner had misrepresented who owned an agency involved in an investment project and that the agency received €1.1 million under an agreement with the project company. The complainant alleged fraud. The solicitor denied the allegations in a response to the LSRA.
The LSRA had deferred consideration of the complaint pending the conclusion of any Garda investigation. The judgment records no evidence before the court that a Garda investigation was under way. It also records that neither the LSRA nor the Law Society had applied to restrict the solicitor’s ability to practise.
The Minister argued that the pause was a temporary measure to protect the scheme’s integrity while serious complaints were investigated. The solicitor’s counsel argued that the decision affected his livelihood and reputation without giving him notice or an opportunity to make representations.
The judge found that the solicitor had crossed the threshold for an injunction and had a strong case to advance at trial. He said basic fair procedures required an opportunity to make representations before a material decision affecting livelihood or good name, and found force in the arguments that the Minister lacked authority to effectively bar the solicitor from this area of work and that the decision failed to give reasons.
On the balance of justice, the judge accepted evidence that IIP work accounted for about half the firm’s fee income and that lost clients and market share could cause losses that damages would not adequately remedy. He was not persuaded that allowing the solicitor to continue acting pending trial would cause appreciable harm to the Minister or the scheme. The court reserved its indicative view on costs to the trial and listed the matter for mention on 28 March 2025 to hear the parties on costs and ancillary matters.