The High Court has awarded two judicial review applicants their costs after return orders directing their removal from the State expired before being enforced.
Mr Justice Barr ruled that A.I. and A.D. were entitled to recover the costs they incurred up to the dates on which their respective cases became moot. The amount of those costs is to be agreed or adjudicated, while the court reserved for further argument the costs of the contested costs application itself.
A.I. was served with a return order dated April 30, 2025 and obtained leave from the High Court on September 2 to challenge it. The proceedings became moot on November 8 when the six-month statutory period for enforcing the order expired.
A.D.’s return order was dated May 28, 2025. Leave for judicial review was granted on September 15 and that case became moot on December 5 for the same reason.
The State argued that no costs should be awarded because the orders lapsed by operation of law and neither applicant had obtained an injunction preventing removal. It also relied on evidence describing the administrative and logistical steps involved in carrying out return orders.
Mr Justice Barr found, however, that no specific difficulty had been identified which explained why either order was not executed. In A.I.’s case, the judgment records that the applicant attended appointments with the Garda National Immigration Bureau on June 3, July 9 and October 7, 2025.
The judge concluded that the proceedings became moot because of the Minister’s “unilateral inaction” in not enforcing the orders while they remained valid. He found no conduct by either applicant that would justify reducing their recoverable costs.
A.I. was therefore awarded costs up to November 8, 2025, while A.D. was awarded costs up to December 5, 2025.