The High Court has refused an appeal by an anonymised applicant for international protection who challenged the refusal of a learner permit after the National Driver Licence Service said her application lacked acceptable evidence of residency entitlement.
A.B. applied for international protection in Ireland in 2015 and held a Temporary Residence Certificate allowing her to remain while her application was being examined. She applied for a learner permit on 31 October 2018, submitting that certificate. The application was not accepted. A.B. lives in Munster and works in County Dublin, and the agreed facts say a lack of direct provision accommodation in Dublin prevented her from moving there.
The Workplace Relations Commission found in A.B.’s favour on her complaint under the Equal Status Acts. The Road Safety Authority appealed, and the Circuit Court allowed that appeal on 30 July 2020. A.B. then appealed the Circuit Court decision to the High Court on points of law, arguing that the rules required “normal residence” rather than a separate entitlement to reside, and that the Authority’s approach amounted to indirect discrimination on grounds of race.
The Authority argued that the regulations, application form and guidance required evidence of residency entitlement. It also submitted that the applicant was not “normally resident” for the purposes of the licensing rules and that its approach was required by law or, alternatively, objectively justified.
The High Court examined the licensing regulations and the 2016 application form, which included a checklist referring applicants to guidance on evidence of residency entitlement. It held that the statutory requirements applied to A.B. and that the complaint, as framed, sought to challenge the principles and policies underpinning the statutory scheme. Relying on an earlier High Court decision concerning the interaction of the Equal Status Acts with another statutory scheme, the court concluded that the Authority’s actions were required by legislative enactment and could not be the subject of an adverse finding under the Equal Status Acts.
The court refused the appeal and held that the Circuit Court had made no error of law on the points raised, including its conclusions on the residency evidence requirement, the meaning of normal residence, race discrimination and the WRC’s remit. The judgment did not itself set out the final form of order or decide costs. It asked the parties to correspond about both; if they could not agree, short written submissions were to be filed within 21 days.