The High Court has ordered costs in favour of three applicants after finding they were wholly successful in securing the quashing and remittal of an immigration decision concerning a father, a mother and their Irish infant daughter.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the costs judgment on 22 July 2021. The application followed the court’s principal judgment, which found that the Minister for Justice and Equality had failed to assess the mother’s mental ill-health and its possible implications for the child’s best interests if the father were removed from the family.
The underlying judicial review raised three complaints. The applicants succeeded on the complaint concerning mental health and the child’s best interests, but failed on a complaint that the father was the child’s primary carer. They also identified errors on the face of the decision, which the court did not consider fatal to its conclusion. The decision was quashed because the assessment flaws were particularly serious in a case involving the welfare of an Irish and European Union citizen child, and the matter was remitted to the Minister for fresh consideration.
In deciding costs, the court considered the Minister’s submissions about the first applicant’s conduct, including his convictions, an earlier marriage-of-convenience matter and failure to meet reporting requirements under a deportation order. The judge accepted the Minister’s points but said only conduct connected to the proceedings and issues was relevant to the costs decision. He considered some of the applicant’s conduct relevant, while noting that the Minister’s failure to assess the possible effects on the child was a serious omission.
The court said the applicants’ arguments were stateable and reasonably pursued, even where they lost on an issue. It also found the proceedings had been professionally conducted and that there had been no exaggeration. The judge noted that the applicants were not financially well off and that their lawyers had acted on a “no foal, no fee” basis.
The costs ruling did not decide the immigration matter afresh. The court said the Minister could reach the same decision after reconsidering it. It ordered costs for the applicants following the quashing and remittal.