The High Court made no order as to costs after finding it was not reasonable for Elias Matta to seek an order compelling the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to prioritise his long-term residency application. The residency application had been granted after proceedings began, leaving costs as the only unresolved issue.
The judicial review proceedings concerned Mr Matta’s applications for long-term residency and a certificate of naturalisation. He obtained leave to seek mandamus in July 2009. The Minister granted long-term residency on 14 August 2009, making that part of the claim moot, and the naturalisation claim was later withdrawn. The court heard the costs application in April 2010.
Mr Matta, a Lebanese national legally resident in Ireland since 2003, applied for long-term residency in May 2008. His lawyers sought priority, citing his wife’s serious illness and, later, his redundancy. The Department said applications were handled in chronological order and that a substantial wait was expected. In July 2009, his solicitors said he was interviewing for an IT job and could not take it up without Stamp 4 status. Proceedings were lodged on 23 July and issued on 27 July.
The court examined correspondence with prospective employer McAfee. When proceedings issued, Mr Matta had not received a job offer. McAfee later offered him a position conditional on resolving his work authorisation, but also said it could apply for a work permit. The judge found that the possibility of such an application meant the asserted employment prejudice had not materialised. The court also found no evidence that the Minister had arbitrarily prioritised other applicants or treated Mr Matta’s application differently.
The judge concluded that the family’s circumstances and the prospective job did not amount to pressing or exceptional grounds for priority, and that seeking mandamus was not reasonable. The judgment endorsed the reasoning in an earlier case concerning long-term residency applications and acknowledged that the relevant approach of the courts may not have been fully understood when Mr Matta’s proceedings began.
The Minister had sought costs for defending the claim. The court declined to make an order requiring Mr Matta to pay them, saying that would be unduly harsh in the circumstances. It made no order as to costs.