The High Court has ordered the State respondents to pay 85% of the applicants’ costs in a judicial review concerning a deportation order, including the costs of an earlier injunction and other costs reserved during the proceedings.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the costs order on 3 May 2017. It followed his 2016 decision on the substantive judicial review, in which he declared that, when considering an application to revoke a deportation order, the Minister must consider the applicant’s current and prospective situation where relevant. That includes the likely position, after birth, of a child who was unborn when the application was made. The court refused the remaining relief sought.
The judge said the applicants had succeeded on the main issue, which had occupied most of the hearing. The State had also asked the court to decide issues that had become moot by the hearing, including aspects concerning the unborn child. The judge treated that request, and the public importance of the legal question, as factors supporting an award of costs to the applicants.
The applicants had not succeeded on every issue. The State prevailed on questions including whether deportation could be restrained while a revocation application was pending, whether the second applicant was entitled to have her partner present at the birth, and whether the first applicant was entitled to specific notice of the intended deportation date. The judge said the injunction had rested partly on the issue on which the applicants later succeeded and partly on an issue on which they failed.
He also allowed for shortcomings and unsuccessful arguments, including repeated amendments to the applicants’ statement of grounds. The judge rejected the State’s arguments that the first applicant’s failure to disclose another relationship should count against him in the costs decision, and that the applicants were responsible for delays around later court dates.
Taking all the circumstances into account, the court awarded the applicants 85% of the costs of the proceedings, including the injunction and other reserved costs. The costs were to be calculated on the basis that the applicants reasonably had solicitors and two counsel at all stages. The judgment addressed costs; it did not grant new substantive relief on the deportation order.