FA v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 147 (03 March 2021)

FA v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 147 (03 March 2021)

The proceedings became moot due to the Supreme Court's decision in NVU, which resolved all legal issues raised by the applicant. The subsequent exercise of Article 17 discretion by the Minister did not alter the fact that no live controversy remained. There were no countervailing factors justifying a departure from the default rule, so no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 147
Parties
Applicant: FA; First Respondent: The International Protection Appeals Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister for Justice; Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Application After Proceedings Became Moot
Outcome
No order as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs in Moot Proceedings, Dublin III Regulation, Article 17 Discretion, Judicial Review in Asylum Cases, Doctrine of Precedent, Mootness
Administrative Law Immigration Law EU Law Costs in Moot Proceedings Dublin III Regulation Article 17 Discretion Judicial Review in Asylum Cases Doctrine of Precedent +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FA

Applicant

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister for Justice

Second Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Application After Proceedings Became Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear costs when judicial review proceedings become moot due to a Supreme Court decision and subsequent administrative action?
  2. 2 What is the cause of mootness in the context of Article 17 Dublin III Regulation litigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings became moot due to the Supreme Court's decision in NVU, which resolved all legal issues raised by the applicant. The subsequent exercise of Article 17 discretion by the Minister did not alter the fact that no live controversy remained. There were no countervailing factors justifying a departure from the default rule, so no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs

Orders

  • No order as to costs in respect of the proceedings