Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)

Adam v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38; [2001] 2 ILRM 452 (5 April 2001)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to seek judicial review where the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or disclose no reasonable cause of action. The European Convention on Human Rights is not part of Irish law and cannot be relied upon in domestic proceedings. The applicants failed to establish any individual fear of persecution or any credible basis for challenging the deportation decisions, and the proceedings were therefore frivolous, vexatious, and doomed to fail. The court also held it had no jurisdiction to compel the State to institute proceedings against Romania under the Convention.

Citation
[2001] IESC 38
Parties
Applicants/appellants: Adam and others; Applicant/appellant: Iordache; Respondents: Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights, Separation of Powers, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Striking Out Proceedings
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Deportation European Convention on Human Rights Separation of Powers Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam and others

Applicants/appellants

Iordache

Applicant/appellant

Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court or Supreme Court has jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to seek judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Minister was obliged to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings disclosed any reasonable cause of action or were frivolous, vexatious, or doomed to fail

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order granting leave to seek judicial review where the proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or disclose no reasonable cause of action. The European Convention on Human Rights is not part of Irish law and cannot be relied upon in domestic proceedings. The applicants failed to establish any individual fear of persecution or any credible basis for challenging the deportation decisions, and the proceedings were therefore frivolous, vexatious, and doomed to fail. The court also held it had no jurisdiction to compel the State to institute proceedings against Romania under the Convention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Affirmed the order of the High Court Judge dismissing the proceedings in each case.