Judgment: 2023-01-17 · Court archive

High Court allows next friend to join judicial review as applicant

The amendment adds Mr U. as an applicant without changing the grounds or relief sought. The court left costs and final orders for later submissions.

High Court · [2023] IEHC 30

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Minister for Justice (Respondent)
  • Ms Justice Bolger
What

The amendment adds Mr U. as an applicant without changing the grounds or relief sought. The court left costs and final orders for later submissions.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge rejected the Minister’s argument that adding Mr U. would turn the proceedings into a different case. She said the amendment would help ensure the correct issues were before the court and, given counsel’s commitments, would not prejudice the Minister’s defence.

The High Court has allowed Mr U., the next friend of a minor applicant, to be added as an applicant in a judicial review against the Minister for Justice. The amendment does not change the grounds for the case or the relief sought.

Ms Justice Bolger delivered the ruling on 17 January 2023. The application was made under Order 15, rule 13, which allows parties to be added where their presence may help the court decide all the issues.

The Minister opposed the amendment, arguing that including Mr U., an Irish citizen, could expose her to a different case involving his constitutional rights. The Minister was also concerned that a broader case might be advanced at the hearing.

The applicants said Mr U.’s absence could adversely affect their claim. They sought to add him after the Minister raised concerns about whether the children knew of the proceedings and potential costs, and about the absence of their mother’s consent. The judgment says those concerns were addressed to the Minister’s satisfaction through an affidavit and confirmation from Bangladeshi authorities about the legal basis for Mr U. to act as next friend.

The applicants’ counsel told the court that they would not expand the grounds or relief. Counsel described Mr U.’s rights as secondary to those of the two minor applicants and said the children could themselves assert the constitutional rights already pleaded. Counsel also submitted that Mr U.’s residence in Ireland could benefit the Minister if a costs order were made, as he would be a local person against whom to enforce it.

The judge rejected the Minister’s argument that adding Mr U. would turn the proceedings into a different case. She said the amendment would help ensure the correct issues were before the court and, given counsel’s commitments, would not prejudice the Minister’s defence.

The court allowed the amendment. It did not decide the underlying judicial review. Although the judge considered the applicants entitled in principle to the costs of the amendment application, she scheduled a mention for 10:30am on 7 February to hear any further submissions on costs and final orders.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review