The Court of Appeal has dismissed A.A.’s appeal over her transfer from a Dublin reception centre to accommodation in Athlone, ruling that her judicial review case had become moot by the time it was heard in the High Court.
In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2024, Ms Justice Power said A.A.’s grant of refugee status in April 2022 took her outside the Reception Conditions Regulations that governed her as an international protection applicant. The court found that the transfer decision no longer had a present or future legal effect and that the remaining claims did not disclose a substantial breach of rights requiring a decision.
A.A. and her son had applied for international protection in June 2021 and were housed at Balseskin, a reception centre in Dublin. An initial vulnerability assessment recorded that A.A., then 67, reported no physical disability or difficulty walking, washing or climbing stairs unaided. Later correspondence from her GP referred to suspected dementia, hypertension and mobility issues. A medical adviser to the accommodation service said the information did not require her to remain in Dublin.
After a planned move was briefly delayed, A.A. and her son were transferred to an interconnecting mobile home in Athlone on 11 March 2022. Her representatives said she struggled to use the small bathroom and shower because of her mobility. They also argued that the move made it difficult to attend medical appointments in Dublin. The judgment records that the home had private bathroom, kitchen and bedroom facilities, and that no consultant diagnosis or medical report had been provided to support the claims about her condition.
The High Court found the case moot in April 2023. By then, A.A. had abandoned requests to quash the transfer and compel a further vulnerability assessment, but continued to seek declarations that her private or health rights had been breached, as well as damages. The Court of Appeal considered whether those remaining claims amounted to a live, concrete dispute. It concluded they did not, finding that the alleged privacy breach did not meet the required threshold and that the evidence did not establish a substantial breach of health rights. It also said the pleadings did not claim a breach of the reception regulations.
The appeal court declined to use its discretion to hear the case despite mootness, finding no general legal issue requiring clarification. It dismissed the appeal and made a provisional order for the respondents’ appeal costs. If A.A. seeks a different costs order, the judgment says the matter is to be listed for a short hearing on 26 June 2024.