The High Court has made no order as to costs in two judicial review cases that became moot after the Minister for Justice decided the applicants’ residency applications. Mr Justice Cregan said the decisions were not prompted or influenced by the proceedings, so there was no event for costs to follow.
The judgment concerns proceedings brought by Muhammad Muzaffar and his family, and by Ali Mumtaz Pervaiz. Both sought orders of mandamus requiring the Minister to decide applications under the Regularisation of Long Term Undocumented Migrant Scheme. The court dealt only with costs after the requested decisions had been made; it did not decide whether the delays had been lawful or reasonable.
The Muzaffar family applied to the scheme in February 2022. They had sought a decision from the Department of Justice and began judicial review proceedings in April 2023. The Minister granted the family permission to remain for two years on 29 May 2023, before the scheduled leave hearing. The court said that decision rendered the proceedings moot.
In the second case, Pervaiz applied to the scheme in April 2022. The Minister refused his application in June 2023, finding that he did not meet the scheme’s criteria because he had held permission to reside in the State during the previous four years. He appealed the refusal, but the appeal was later refused in August 2024. The High Court’s costs judgment did not review the merits of those decisions.
The Minister’s official, Mary Kelly, said in affidavits that the scheme’s applications were processed chronologically and that each required individual checks. She said the background checks in the Muzaffar case were completed shortly before the decision. In Pervaiz’s case, she said the refusal letter had been drafted before the leave documents were served, but was awaiting legal advice. Neither applicant sought to cross-examine her, and the judge treated her evidence as uncontroverted.
Applying the rules for costs in moot proceedings, Justice Cregan found that the Minister’s decisions were unilateral actions that made the cases moot, but there was no causal connection between the proceedings and the decisions. He also found no explicit admission that the applicants’ legal challenges were valid. The court did not assess the underlying delay claims, and said it would not use a costs application as a trial of issues in cases that had become moot.
The judge concluded that neither the Minister’s nor the applicants’ conduct justified an award of costs. The order was no order as to costs.