No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Register Now
Tuesday, 4th November, 2025

Relief refused to undocumented migrant as supporting documentation held insufficient for residence scheme

By: Decisis
The High Court refused an application for judicial review by a Zimbabwean national, who challenged the Minister for Justice's refusal to grant her residence permission under Ireland's Regularisation of Long-Term Undocumented Migrants Scheme. The applicant, undocumented in the State since 2010, argued she had provided sufficient evidence to meet the scheme’s four-year continuous residency requirement and that the Minister had applied the evidential criteria too strictly. The court found that, although the applicant had submitted supporting letters and evidence of money transfers made by a friend to her children, this did not constitute the required verifiable proof of her own continuous residence for the relevant period. The judge concluded that the Minister was entitled to expect more direct and satisfactory documentation, and the application for relief was refused, with costs provisionally awarded to the Minister.

Appeal against damages for malicious prosecution by gardaí dismissed as awards upheld for wrongful prosecution

By: Decisis
The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two gardaí and the State against High Court jury awards for malicious prosecution in favour of two brothers, both Italian nationals, who had been wrongly accused of theft, arrested, and prosecuted following an incident on a tram in Dublin. At trial, the jury found that the prosecution had been maintained for an improper purpose—to deter the brothers from seeking legal advice regarding their treatment by the gardaí—and that the prosecution lacked honest belief and reasonable grounds. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, finding no error in the judge’s directions to the jury or in the awarding of €95,000 in damages to each plaintiff. The Court affirmed that the trial process had been fair, the jury had been properly instructed, and the damages were not excessive given the reputational harm and distress caused. All grounds of appeal, including challenges to the conduct of the trial, the assessment of credibility, and the scale of damages, were rejected. The respondents were awarded costs of the appeal.

Deed of Separation set aside as sham and family home awarded to wife in divorce proceedings

By: Decisis
The High Court set aside the terms of a Deed of Separation entered into between the parties, finding it was not a bona fide agreement but a sham orchestrated by the husband to minimise provision for his wife and preserve family assets for himself. The court concluded that the husband had deliberately misled his wife about the purpose of the agreement, failed to make full and honest disclosure of his assets, and had concealed his true financial situation. As a result, the court ordered the transfer of the family home (free of encumbrances) to the wife, directed a significant lump sum payment from the husband to the wife, declared the maintenance covenants unenforceable, gave the wife the right to seek spousal maintenance in future, and extinguished succession rights on a conditional basis; the court also awarded the majority of legal costs to the wife. The judgment highlighted the importance of full financial disclosure and the court's duty to ensure proper provision is made for spouses on divorce, irrespective of the contents of a separation agreement.

Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.

Register Now