E v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors FOM v The Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2026] IESC 17 (19 March 2026)

E v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors FOM v The Minister for Justice & Ors (Approved) [2026] IESC 17 (19 March 2026)

The Supreme Court held that, as the only issue argued at appellate level was mootness and not the substantive foundational constitutional or EU law issues, the case did not fall within the categories justifying a departure from the usual costs rule. Therefore, the State parties were entitled to their full costs in the Court of Appeal and 50% of their costs in the Supreme Court.

Citation
[2026] IESC 17
Parties
Applicant/respondent: KE; Applicant/respondent: FOM; Respondent/appellant: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Respondent/appellant: The Minister for Justice; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Appeal / Supreme Court Ruling on Costs After Reversal of Court of Appeal Decision on Mootness
Outcome
Costs order in favour of State parties: full costs in Court of Appeal, 50% costs in Supreme Court; High Court costs to be determined in substantive appeal.
Legal Topics
International Protection, Safe Third Country Designation, Non Refoulement, Mootness, Costs, Public Interest Litigation
Immigration Law European Union Law Constitutional Law International Protection Safe Third Country Designation Non Refoulement Mootness Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KE

Applicant/respondent

FOM

Applicant/respondent

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

Respondent/appellant

The Minister for Justice

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Appeal / Supreme Court Ruling on Costs After Reversal of Court of Appeal Decision on Mootness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State parties are entitled to costs following the Supreme Court's reversal of the Court of Appeal's mootness decision
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings qualify as public interest litigation warranting a departure from the usual costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, as the only issue argued at appellate level was mootness and not the substantive foundational constitutional or EU law issues, the case did not fall within the categories justifying a departure from the usual costs rule. Therefore, the State parties were entitled to their full costs in the Court of Appeal and 50% of their costs in the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Costs order in favour of State parties: full costs in Court of Appeal, 50% costs in Supreme Court; High Court costs to be determined in substantive appeal.

Orders

  • State parties awarded full costs in the Court of Appeal.
  • State parties awarded 50% of their costs in the Supreme Court.