Luximon & ors -v- Minister for Justice & Equality Bachand & ors -v- Minister for Justice & Equality [2018] IESC 24 (24 April 2018)

Luximon & ors -v- Minister for Justice & Equality Bachand & ors -v- Minister for Justice & Equality [2018] IESC 24 (24 April 2018)

The Minister's decision to direct the applicants to leave the State under s.4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004 was ultra vires, as the statute does not confer such a power. Even if such a power existed, the Minister was required to consider the applicants' Article 8 ECHR rights at the time of the s.4(7) decision. The Minister's failure to do so rendered the decisions unlawful. The statutory schemes of the 1999 and 2004 Acts are not in pari materia and cannot be construed together to justify the Minister's approach.

Citation
[2018] IESC 24
Parties
Applicants/respondents: Daniye Luximon and Prashina Choolun (a minor suing by her mother and next friend Daniye Luximon); Respondent/appellant: Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform; Amicus Curiae: Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission; Applicants/respondents: Yaswin Balchand and Shandrika Gopee and Cieron Laksh Balchand (a minor suing by his father and next friend Yaswin Balchand); Respondent/appellant: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (joined Cases) From the Court of Appeal and High Court / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Renewal or Variation of Immigration Permission, Article 8 ECHR (private and Family Life), Ministerial Discretion, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Renewal or Variation of Immigration Permission Article 8 ECHR (private and Family Life) Ministerial Discretion Statutory Interpretation Ultra Vires +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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniye Luximon and Prashina Choolun (a minor suing by her mother and next friend Daniye Luximon)

Applicants/respondents

Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform

Respondent/appellant

Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission

Amicus Curiae

Yaswin Balchand and Shandrika Gopee and Cieron Laksh Balchand (a minor suing by his father and next friend Yaswin Balchand)

Applicants/respondents

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (joined Cases) From the Court of Appeal and High Court / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister for Justice, in deciding applications under s.4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004, is required to consider applicants' Article 8 ECHR rights to private and family life
  2. 2 Whether the Minister has the power under s.4(7) to direct applicants to leave the State absent such consideration
  3. 3 Whether s.4(7) of the 2004 Act and s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999 are in pari materia

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's decision to direct the applicants to leave the State under s.4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004 was ultra vires, as the statute does not confer such a power. Even if such a power existed, the Minister was required to consider the applicants' Article 8 ECHR rights at the time of the s.4(7) decision. The Minister's failure to do so rendered the decisions unlawful. The statutory schemes of the 1999 and 2004 Acts are not in pari materia and cannot be construed together to justify the Minister's approach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Minister's decision letters under s.4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004 declared ultra vires and unlawful
  • Minister required to consider Article 8 ECHR rights in s.4(7) decisions