The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and a cross-appeal over costs in a case that became moot after the Minister for Justice granted Elias Matta long-term residency. It affirmed the High Court’s order making no costs order in the judicial review proceedings. The Court proposed hearing separate applications about the costs of the appeals.
Matta had brought proceedings seeking an order compelling the Minister to decide his residency application. The High Court refused to award him the costs of those proceedings. Matta appealed, arguing that he should receive his costs; the State respondents cross-appealed, arguing that costs should instead have been awarded to them.
Matta applied for long-term residency in May 2008. His solicitors later asked the Minister to consider the application sooner, citing his circumstances and the prospect of employment. The judicial review proceedings were issued on 27 July 2009. The Minister granted residency on 18 August, and the proceedings then became moot.
The central question in the Supreme Court was whether the grant followed from the proceedings, which could support a costs award, or whether mootness resulted from an occurrence outside the parties’ control, which could support making no order for costs. Matta’s counsel argued that the timing showed the application had been moved ahead because of the proceedings.
The respondents relied on affidavit evidence from Fionnuala McEvoy, an official dealing with long-term residency applications. She said the proceedings had no bearing on the decision and that the application was determined after Garda clearance was received in early August. The Supreme Court noted that her evidence had not been tested in cross-examination.
The Court held that the High Court judge had material on which she could find no causal link between the proceedings and the grant. It said the judge was entitled to draw that inference, and that the Supreme Court should be slow to reach a different conclusion on appeal. It treated the case as one where the application became moot because of an occurrence outside the parties’ control. The fact that the Minister made a decision after proceedings began did not, by itself, require a costs order.
The Court distinguished this case from a separate authority where proceedings were found to have prompted a change in the law. Here, Matta was entitled to a decision on his application, but the Court found no basis to conclude that the proceedings caused the eventual grant. It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the High Court’s no-costs order. The costs of the appeals remained for a further hearing.