The High Court has rejected damages claims brought over delays in deciding two children’s Irish passport applications, finding that neither family had shown the processing time was unreasonable.
In a judgment delivered on 17 December 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade had not refused to decide either application. The court also found that the applicants had not established unreasonable delay. It made no order for costs in the Dunga case, but ordered the Moldovan applicants to pay costs.
Both children were born in Dublin to Romanian parents. Their passport claims depended on whether a parent had been lawfully resident in Ireland for at least three of the four years before each child’s birth. Applications were made in June 2012. The Passport Service told both families that decisions were delayed while it sought clarification about documents needed to establish residence for children of Romanian or Bulgarian parents.
The court held that a prescribed statutory declaration creates a rebuttable presumption of actual residence. It said the Minister could seek additional documents about residence and, where relevant, whether that residence was lawful. The passport legislation also required the Minister to be satisfied that an applicant was an Irish citizen before issuing a passport.
The judgment records that the Dunga child was approved for a passport in December 2012. The Moldovan application was initially refused in March 2013, then settled in the applicants’ favour in separate judicial review proceedings, with a passport to be issued. The court was considering damages and costs in the proceedings before it, rather than deciding the merits of either passport application anew.
Justice O’Malley accepted that the departmental review was an appropriate reason to seek clarification, though she said the Passport Service appeared not to have considered whether the issue under review applied to each individual case. The Dunga father supplied further documents about his self-employment after the respondent’s affidavit raised questions; the passport decision followed shortly afterwards. The court found the resulting delay was not inordinate.
In the Moldovan case, the court noted discrepancies concerning the father’s arrival and lawful residence, including his later concession that he could not count a period in 2007 when he worked without a permit. It found the claim for damages unsustainable in those circumstances and said it should not have been pursued after the passport was issued.
The families had said they wanted to travel to Romania for holidays. The judge acknowledged that wish but found the asserted prejudice did not make the delays unlawful. No damages were awarded.