Judgment: 2018-04-23 · Court archive

High Court strikes out moot residence-permission case and refuses applicant’s costs bid

The proceedings became moot after the applicant’s permanent residence application was finally refused. The court said he could not rely on temporary permission to work to claim costs, given an undertaking he had given.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 391

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ndubuisi Uche (Applicant)
  • The Minister for Justice and Equality (Respondent)
  • Richard Humphreys (Judge)
What

The proceedings became moot after the applicant’s permanent residence application was finally refused. The court said he could not rely on temporary permission to work to claim costs, given an undertaking he had given.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court struck out judicial review proceedings brought by Nigerian national Ndubuisi Uche after finding they had become moot, and refused his application for costs. It made no order on the respondent’s costs because the Minister for Justice and Equality was not seeking them.

The High Court struck out judicial review proceedings brought by Nigerian national Ndubuisi Uche after finding they had become moot, and refused his application for costs. It made no order on the respondent’s costs because the Minister for Justice and Equality was not seeking them.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 23 April 2018. The proceedings concerned Uche’s request for permission to reside and work while his permanent residence application was being considered. The court had not granted leave for his separate request to compel a decision on that application, after being told the Minister intended to refuse it.

Uche had married a Czech citizen in 2011. The judgment says the State disputed the extent to which she exercised EU Treaty rights. He received five years’ permission to remain in Ireland in December 2011. His wife left the State in August 2016, and his permission expired on 6 December that year. His retention-of-rights application was refused in April 2017; a requested review was later withdrawn.

The permanent residence application was refused on 30 June 2017. The Minister’s solicitors had offered Uche permission to work while that application was pending, on terms that included his undertaking not to argue that the proceedings were moot because of that temporary permission. The letter also said the offer was not an admission that the Minister was legally obliged to grant it.

The court said that undertaking did not prevent Uche from relying on mootness arising on another basis. The final refusal of permanent residence had made the proceedings moot, subject to a possible damages claim, which counsel said Uche had disclaimed. The validity of the permanent residence refusal could remain a live issue, the judge said, but it was not an issue in these proceedings. A separate judicial review of the refusal review decision was identified as case 2018 No. 197 J.R.

The judge concluded that Uche’s costs application improperly relied on the grant of temporary permission, contrary to his undertaking. He struck out the proceedings as moot and refused the costs application. He made no order on the Minister’s costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review