S. -v- Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Anor [2009] IEHC 474 (30 October 2009)

S. -v- Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Anor [2009] IEHC 474 (30 October 2009)

There is a serious issue as to whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires by proceeding with the hearing in the absence of a Presenting Officer, and the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for judicial review on this ground. However, the delay in delivering the decision, while unsatisfactory, did not result in any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 474
Parties
Applicant: F. K. S.; Respondent: Refugee Appeals Tribunal; Respondent: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review granted on the first ground (absence of Presenting Officer); refused on the second ground (delay).
Legal Topics
Refugee Status Determination, Procedural Fairness, Ultra Vires, Delay in Decision Making
Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee Status Determination Procedural Fairness Ultra Vires Delay in Decision Making

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. K. S.

Applicant

Refugee Appeals Tribunal

Respondent

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Appeals Tribunal acted ultra vires by proceeding with the appeal hearing in the absence of a representative of the Refugee Applications Commissioner.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to determine the applicant’s appeal within a reasonable time, thereby acting ultra vires and/or in breach of natural and constitutional justice.

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue as to whether the Tribunal acted ultra vires by proceeding with the hearing in the absence of a Presenting Officer, and the applicant is entitled to leave to apply for judicial review on this ground. However, the delay in delivering the decision, while unsatisfactory, did not result in any prejudice to the applicant and does not justify granting leave on that ground.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review granted on the first ground (absence of Presenting Officer); refused on the second ground (delay).