The High Court refused an application by Muhammad Nadeem to give oral evidence in his judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The court held that the proposed evidence fell outside the case for which leave had been sought and granted.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 5 March 2019. The proceedings concerned a Ministerial decision in which documents submitted by Mr Nadeem were found to be “false and misleading as to a material fact”. His counsel said oral evidence was needed to challenge the rejection of those documents and the basis for applying a deportation procedure rather than a removal procedure under the relevant EU rules.
The court said the statement of grounds and the order granting leave on 11 June 2018 had not challenged the Minister’s factual findings or argued that they were unsustainable or unreasonable. It concluded that the evidence Mr Nadeem now wanted to present was outside the scope of the leave granted, and that this was sufficient to prevent the court granting the application.
The judgment considered whether the court could hear oral evidence in judicial review proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction. Citing earlier authority, it accepted that such evidence may be permitted in principle, but said it should be allowed only in the most exceptional case. The judge found no exceptional circumstances here: leave had been granted on particular grounds, an application to amend them had not been made, and there appeared to be no reason the proposed evidence could not have been set out in an affidavit.
The court rejected the argument that refusing the application would deny Mr Nadeem the right to be heard, saying that right extended to the case he had brought. It also accepted the Minister’s submission that Mr Nadeem could make a fresh application under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 to remain in Ireland, and that the earlier finding about the documents would not affect whether that application succeeded.
The court did not determine the outstanding substantive issues in this judgment. It said it would proceed to adjudicate on them unless the parties had further argument. The ruling therefore refused the request to adduce oral evidence; it did not itself decide the remaining points in the judicial review.