The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a decision that a man was no longer entitled to apply for family reunification for four minors. The decision had been notified on 31 March 2017.
The applicants argued that the first applicant’s subsidiary protection status, granted in February 2015, gave him a right to apply under the 2013 regulations without a 12-month deadline. They relied on section 27 of the Interpretation Act 2005, which provides that repeal does not affect rights acquired or accrued under an enactment.
The 2015 International Protection Act repealed the relevant 2013 regulations and introduced a 12-month period for a sponsor to apply for family reunification, running from the grant of a refugee or subsidiary protection declaration. The applicants said their asserted right had arisen before that change.
In her judgment delivered on 8 May 2017, Ms Justice O’Regan considered authorities on when a right is sufficiently vested to survive repeal. She noted that the Supreme Court had described the presumption under section 27 as weak and capable of being rebutted by the text or context of later legislation. The 2015 Act included transition provisions for certain declarations and permissions but did not provide additional arrangements for family members’ rights to enter and reside.
The court found that no family reunification application had been made when the 2015 Act came into force. The right claimed was therefore only a right to take advantage of the repealed enactment, not a vested right that triggered the section 27 presumption. On that basis, the applicants’ argument was not sustainable and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
The ruling concerned the application for leave. The judgment does not record a substantive judicial review hearing or a separate order determining a family reunification application.