The High Court has set aside a 2021 decision refusing an Indian national’s application for residence as the durable partner of a Polish national, and sent the matter back to the Minister for Justice for fresh consideration.
Mr Justice Barr, delivering judgment electronically on 10 May 2022, held that the Minister had not carried out the extensive examination of the applicants’ personal circumstances required by EU law and Irish regulations. The court did not decide that the applicant was entitled to residence.
The couple said they met through work in 2014, began a relationship in 2015 and lived together from that year. They supplied documents including bills, bank statements, photographs, messages and letters from colleagues and the second applicant’s mother. Their submissions also described the first applicant’s support during the second applicant’s health difficulties.
The Minister refused the residence application in April 2018 and upheld that refusal on review in March 2021. The reasons included inconsistencies in the claimed dates of cohabitation, the first applicant’s earlier marriage to a Portuguese national—which the Minister had found to be a marriage of convenience—and what the Minister considered limited evidence of financial commitment and other shared ties.
The applicants sought judicial review of both decisions. The court refused to extend the deadline to challenge the 2018 decision, citing a delay of more than three years and the lack of concrete reasons for it. It did extend time for the challenge to the 2021 decision, which was about two weeks late, taking account of pandemic restrictions, the court vacation and the absence of significant prejudice to the Minister.
On the substance of the later decision, the judge said the earlier marriage finding could be considered as a serious negative factor in assessing the first applicant’s credibility, but was not determinative of the new application. He found that the Minister appeared to have placed excessive weight on that issue and on financial commitments, jointly owned assets and foreign travel. The judgment noted that the first applicant’s lack of residence permission affected his ability to work and travel, and that there was evidence of a joint bank account and shared bills.
The judge also found that the decision did not engage with significant material, including evidence from colleagues and the second applicant’s mother, photographs and messages, and medical and nursing evidence describing the first applicant’s support during her illness. The court therefore quashed the 29 March 2021 decision and remitted the application for fresh consideration. The parties were invited to make written submissions on the final order and costs.