The High Court dismissed a judicial review after the Minister for Justice admitted the applicants to the protection process, making the proceedings moot. It ordered the respondents to pay the applicants 50% of the total costs, including costs connected with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) proceedings and all reserved costs.
In a judgment delivered on 26 April 2021, Humphreys J. said the central issue was who should exercise the fallback discretion under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation. The CJEU had answered a question referred in this case in January 2019. The Supreme Court later held in separate proceedings, N.V.U., that the discretion belonged to the Minister, reversing the Court of Appeal’s conclusion and restoring the High Court’s decision for the State.
The Minister admitted the applicants to the protection process after the Supreme Court judgment. The parties agreed that the case was moot and should be dismissed. They disagreed on costs: the respondents sought their full costs, while the applicants sought a contribution. The State had made an offer towards the applicants’ costs, but it was not accepted and was not binding.
Humphreys J. noted the usual rule that costs follow the event, and that the State had changed its position on Article 17 before these proceedings began. But he considered the issue exceptionally important to the public. Several hundred other cases had been held up pending a final determination, and this case had provided the route for the CJEU reference and its interpretation of EU law.
The judge also pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in N.V.U. to award the losing applicants 50% of their costs there, including High Court costs. He said the present case was nearly as significant to resolving the legal issue as N.V.U. The court therefore dismissed the proceedings and awarded the applicants half of the total costs. The judgment did not determine the underlying judicial review on its merits.