The High Court refused a naturalisation applicant’s request for legal costs after his certificate was granted while judicial review proceedings were under way. The court made no costs order in favour of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but said costs against an applicant could be appropriate in later cases with similar facts.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice M. H. Clark on 29 July 2009, concerned proceedings brought by A. N., a Pakistani national who came to Ireland on a student visa in 2002. He later received a work permit, married an Irish citizen and was granted Stamp 4 residence. He applied for a certificate of naturalisation in June 2007.
The Department acknowledged the application as valid in September 2007. After the applicant’s solicitors sought an update, the Minister’s office said in October 2007 that a backlog meant processing would take 29 months, with a decision expected in November 2009. The applicant began proceedings seeking an order requiring the Minister to decide the application within a reasonable time.
In October 2008, Mr Justice Edwards granted leave to seek judicial review on an ex parte basis, finding it arguable that the Minister had to deal with applications expeditiously and within a reasonable time. The application was processed after that, and the Minister granted a certificate of naturalisation in February 2009. The applicant also received an Irish passport. The underlying proceedings were then treated as moot, and the dispute before Ms Justice Clark was about costs.
The applicant argued that starting proceedings had been reasonable given the law and the 29-month delay. His counsel said he was disadvantaged because he could not vote in European elections as a non-citizen. The Minister’s counsel accepted that applications should be decided within a reasonable time, but argued that what was reasonable depended on the application and the Minister’s statutory discretion. She also said the applicant had not shown a stronger claim to earlier consideration than others waiting in the queue.
Ms Justice Clark found no evidence of unreasonable or unconscionable delay or of prejudice to the applicant. She said he had been told of the expected processing period and had identified no special or pressing circumstances requiring earlier consideration. She also considered that directing a decision by a court-set deadline in the circumstances would intrude on the separation of executive and judicial powers.
The court refused the applicant’s costs application. It made no order for costs in favour of the Minister, noting that this may have been the first time the issue had been tested in such cases. The judgment said a costs order against an applicant might be appropriate in later cases involving similar facts.