The High Court made no order as to costs after a judicial review application seeking a decision on a visa became moot. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys held that the refusal of the visa application was not causally connected to the proceedings.
The first applicant, a British national exercising EU law rights in Ireland, applied on 25 September 2017 for a visa for her brother, the second applicant, who was living in Pakistan. They relied on the EU free movement directive, which they said required the application to be handled as soon as possible under an accelerated procedure.
After a change of address was notified in February 2018, the Minister for Justice and Equality sought further information from the first applicant. A reply was received in March. On 24 April, the applicants’ solicitors sent a letter of demand with enclosures totalling 20 pages. The Minister said the letter was both a 14-day warning and additional information requiring assessment.
The visa application was refused on 9 May, but the applicants were not immediately told. Leave to bring judicial review proceedings was granted on 14 May, with the primary relief sought being an order of mandamus requiring a decision. The refusal was notified to the second applicant on 18 May.
Because the decision sought had already been made, the judge said the substantive relief was moot and only the question of costs remained. Both sides sought costs against the other.
The applicants submitted that a causal connection between the proceedings and the matter becoming moot was not necessary for a costs order. The judge said that position did not accord with the mainstream approach in Supreme Court case law. He found the decision had been made before leave was sought, even though the applicants did not know of it, and was not causally connected to the relief sought.
Applying the Supreme Court authorities, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs. It did not determine the merits of the visa application or grant the substantive relief sought.