Northern Ireland Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal area

10 Oct 2026

The Department of Justice v Phoenix Law Solicitors [2025] NIKB 65 (10 October 2026)

Citation

[2025] NIKB 65

A certificate of exceptionality granted under the 2016 rules can cover work already done under an extant legal aid certificate, even if it predates the certificate of exceptionality, provided contemporaneous records are kept and other safeguards are met. The rules do not mandate a solely prospective application, and the LSA must properly consider deferred elements of applications when further information is provided.
- Legal aid certificates
- Exceptional preparation payments
- Retrospective application of legal aid rules
- Statutory interpretation
- Costs assessment
18 May 2026

BD, Re [2026] NIFam 14 (18 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] NIFam 14

The Northern Ireland High Court cannot discharge, vary, or suspend a Scottish power of attorney or guardianship order, nor can it declare revocation or grant a new power of attorney in respect of Scottish instruments; such matters must be determined under the statutory regime in Scotland. The court also lacks jurisdiction to appoint a controller or assume jurisdiction over the applicant's affairs in the absence of incapacity, assets in Northern Ireland, or statutory authority. Recognition of the Scottish power of attorney in Northern Ireland is appropriate only as a matter of judicial comity…
- Recognition of foreign powers of attorney
- Jurisdiction over incapacitous adults
- Revocation of powers of attorney
- Inherent jurisdiction of the high court
- Statutory and common law recognition of protective measures
12 May 2026

JR256, Appeal Against the Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 21 (12 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] NICA 21

The trial judge's factual determination that JR256 was an adult was supported by cogent, detailed evidence from the Manchester Merton-compliant age assessment and was not plainly wrong; the benefit of the doubt principle was not engaged as the evidence was not borderline; article 8 ECHR was not violated as the assessment process was fair, proportionate, and evidence-based.
- Age assessment
- Asylum
- Judicial review
- Benefit of the doubt
- Article 8 echr
- Merton-compliant assessment
12 May 2026

A Father and A Mother Re A Child [2026] NICA 22 (12 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] NICA 22

Repeated applications for Residence Orders and Contact Orders by the applicant were dismissed as lacking merit, with the court affirming the respondent's residence and contact arrangements and imposing Article 179(14) restrictions to prevent further unmeritorious litigation without leave. Costs orders were imposed due to the applicant's persistent and unsuccessful litigation.
- Residence order
- Contact order
- Prohibited steps order
- Specific issues order
- Recovery order
- Article 179(14) children (ni) order 1995
11 May 2026

KBC Bank NV v Smith & Ors (Approved) (Rev1) [2026] IECA 80 (11 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] IECA 80

A mortgagor lawfully evicted pursuant to a final possession order cannot lawfully re-enter the property. Collateral attacks on final court orders are impermissible. Allegations of fraud must be properly pleaded and strictly proved in a separate action; speculative or unparticularised claims do not suffice. Substitution of plaintiff by operation of law under the Central Bank Act 1971 is automatic and not subject to challenge. The defendants' defence and proposed amendments disclosed no reasonable defence and were an abuse of process.
- Mortgage possession
- Collateral attack
- Abuse of process
- Fraud allegations
- Substitution of parties
- Damages undertaking
8 May 2026

Rodgers, R. v (Rev2) [2026] NICA 20 (08 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] NICA 20

The cumulative procedural failures—including inadequate time for the applicant to prepare his defence after loss of representation, failure to hold a ground rules hearing, improper reliance on the Registered Intermediary, and flawed jury directions—resulted in an unfair trial for a vulnerable defendant. These deficiencies rendered the conviction unsafe, regardless of the strength of the prosecution case.
- Fair trial rights
- Self-representation
- Vulnerable defendants
- Jury directions
- Murder
- Loss of control
7 May 2026

Director of Public Prosecutions v Johnston [2026] NIMag 1 (07 May 2026)

Citation

[2026] NIMag 1

The defendant, not being a protected person, deliberately entered a Safe Access Zone and engaged in conduct (preaching) intended to influence or being reckless as to influencing protected persons in connection with their attendance at protected premises, contrary to section 5(2) of the 2023 Act. He also failed to comply with a lawful police direction to leave the zone, contrary to section 6(4). The legislation does not require proof of an actual protected person, and the Supreme Court has determined that no proportionality assessment is required. The devolution issues raised are hopeless or a…
- Abortion services
- Safe access zones
- Freedom of expression
- Freedom of religion
- Public order offences
- Legislative competence
30 Apr 2026

Dougal & Ors, In the Matter of an Inquest Touching Upon the Deaths Of (The Springhill Inquest)(Verdicts, Findings and Reasons) [2026] NICoroner 2 (30 April 2026)

Citation

[2026] NICoroner 2

The coroner found, on the balance of probabilities, that all five deceased were innocent civilians and not engaged in paramilitary activity at the time of their deaths. The deaths were caused by gunfire discharged by British Army personnel. The original investigations were inadequate and failed to meet modern standards, but Article 2 ECHR was not engaged due to temporal limitations. There was insufficient evidence to identify individual shooters or establish criminal or civil liability. The use of force was not justified in the circumstances for any of the deaths.
- Legacy inquests
- Right to life
- State use of force
- Investigative standards
- Privilege against self-incrimination
29 Apr 2026

AG and JW (Hague Convention: Article 13(b) Grave Risk; Children's Objections) [2026] NIFam 11 (29 April 2026)

Citation

[2026] NIFam 11

The removal of MW and SW was wrongful under the Hague Convention. The grave risk defence fails for both children as allegations of harm are not substantiated and protective measures in Ireland are sufficient. MW's objection is influenced by the father and does not warrant refusal of the return order. Both children must be returned to Ireland.
- Hague convention
- Child abduction
- Grave risk exception
- Children's objections
- Custody rights
27 Apr 2026

Lavery, R. v (Sentencing Remarks) [2026] NICC 5 (27 April 2026)

Citation

[2026] NICC 5

The defendant's age and medical condition, while acknowledged, did not place the case into an exceptional category warranting a non-custodial or suspended sentence. The gravity of the offences, breach of trust, number of victims, and impact on the victims required a custodial sentence. The appropriate sentence was two years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, reflecting both aggravating and mitigating factors and the totality principle.
- Indecent assault
- Sentencing
- Mitigation
- Historic sexual offences
- Breach of trust