H v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IECA 335 (18 December 2019)

H v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IECA 335 (18 December 2019)

The Minister's decision was based on uncontroverted evidence that Ms C had worked in the State for less than one year and did not meet the requirements for residence under the 2015 Regulations. The Minister was not obliged to reconcile or follow the Department of Social Protection's actions, and the reasons given were adequate, coherent, and reasonable. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise.

Citation
[2019] IECA 335
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Hany Hemida; Respondent/appellant: The Minister for Justice and Equality
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Residence Rights, Derived Rights, Consistency in Administrative Decision Making, Burden of Proof, Reasoned Decisions
Immigration Administrative Law European Union Law Residence Rights Derived Rights Consistency in Administrative Decision Making Burden of Proof Reasoned Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hany Hemida

Applicant/respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister for Justice and Equality's decision to revoke the residence card was unreasonable or irrational due to apparent inconsistency with the Department of Social Protection's actions
  2. 2 Whether the Minister was obliged to reconcile or follow the Department of Social Protection's determination regarding the Union citizen's residence status
  3. 3 Whether the reasons given by the Minister were adequate and coherent

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's decision was based on uncontroverted evidence that Ms C had worked in the State for less than one year and did not meet the requirements for residence under the 2015 Regulations. The Minister was not obliged to reconcile or follow the Department of Social Protection's actions, and the reasons given were adequate, coherent, and reasonable. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the Minister's decision revoked; Minister's decision reinstated