SZ (Pakistan) -v- Minister for Justice & Law Reform & Ors [2013] IEHC 95 (01 March 2013)

SZ (Pakistan) -v- Minister for Justice & Law Reform & Ors [2013] IEHC 95 (01 March 2013)

Leave refused as applicant lacked standing for constitutional challenge, no adverse credibility findings were relied upon in subsidiary protection decision, and jurisdictional and substantive objections precluded amendment of pleadings post-judgment.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 95
Parties
Applicant: SZ (Pakistan); Respondents: Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland (No.2)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supplementary Judgment Following Principal Judgment and Adjournment of Two Issues
Outcome
Leave refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Subsidiary Protection, Deportation Orders, Constitutional Challenge, Effective Remedy, Amendment of Pleadings
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Subsidiary Protection Deportation Orders Constitutional Challenge Effective Remedy Amendment of Pleadings

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZ (Pakistan)

Applicant

Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland (No.2)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supplementary Judgment Following Principal Judgment and Adjournment of Two Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Constitutionality of s. 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999
  2. 2 Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC
  3. 3 Right to effective remedy under Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85 EC

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused as applicant lacked standing for constitutional challenge, no adverse credibility findings were relied upon in subsidiary protection decision, and jurisdictional and substantive objections precluded amendment of pleadings post-judgment.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Refused leave to challenge validity of subsidiary protection decision.
  • Refused leave to amend pleadings post-judgment.