The High Court has refused Kaylim Singh’s application for judicial review of a decision confirming the refusal of a general employment permit. Mr Justice Conleth Bradley found that the Minister’s decision was reasoned and lawful, and did not unlawfully fetter the Minister’s discretion.
Singh, a South African national, arrived in Ireland on a short-stay visa in May 2022 and remained after it expired. He applied for a permit in or around August 2023, based on an offer from Ardun Investments Ltd, which trades as Kerb. The Minister refused the application in September 2023. After two review decisions, the challenge before the court concerned the decision of 1 February 2024 confirming the refusal.
Singh argued that applying for the permit was itself an effort to regularise his immigration position. His solicitors also relied on earlier High Court decisions about the Minister’s discretion to grant permits to people who lacked immigration permission. They said the Minister had unlawfully treated his lack of permission as an automatic bar and had failed to give adequate reasons.
The judgment records that the department asked Singh to explain what steps he had taken to regularise his status and to provide evidence. In response, his solicitors said he had entered on a visitor’s visa, was seeking an employment permit, and relied on the earlier case law. The court said he offered no account of particular circumstances that might support a favourable exercise of discretion beyond the permit application itself.
The judge distinguished Singh’s circumstances from the earlier cases cited. He noted that Singh had overstayed his visa and had not, before applying for the permit, taken other steps to regularise his status. The February decision referred to the lack of current immigration permission, the absence of evidence of efforts to regularise his position, and the information supplied during the review. The judge concluded that the Minister had considered the circumstances and exercised the discretion available under the Employment Permits Act 2006.
The court also rejected the argument that the decision lacked adequate reasons or was unreasonable. It found that the correspondence gave Singh an opportunity to respond to the issues raised, and that his replies did not answer the department’s questions to its satisfaction. The judge refused the judicial review reliefs. The judgment proposed that the case return to court on 23 July 2025 to address costs and related matters; it did not determine costs in this judgment.