Deportation of Nigerian national restrained pending application for permission to remain as parent of Irish citizen

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – second named applicant granted leave to remain and Irish citizenship – married and had four children – separated from his wife – wife and children live in the UK – Nigerian national arrived in the State falsely claiming to be an unaccompanied minor – aunt is an Irish citizen – refused international protection - sought a review of the permission to remain refusal, and enclosed further representations – letter from an Irish citizen claiming to be in a loving relationship with her - now claims in these proceedings to have been in a loving relationship with the second-named applicant – refused permission to remain – deportation order made - applied for revocation of the deportation order on the grounds that she had become pregnant – revocation application not yet determined - refused an undertaking restraining their deportation – granted an interim injunction restraining her deportation – granted leave – issue of joining unborn child - application for amendment of pleadings - interests of justice - law in relation to amendment of pleadings - right of access to the court - need to ensure that the real issues in the case were addressed – prejudice can be dealt with in costs orders - a matter entirely for the parties as to what points they make or don’t make - no affidavit had been provided to ground the amendment - lack of detail and inconsistency regarding the applicant’s family circumstances - complaint that amending the statement of grounds is separate to whether leave should be granted on the grounds as so amended – arguability test satisfied – arguablilty lack of irremediable prejudice, and explanation - whether the application should be struck out for failure to comply with High Court Practice Direction HC81 - practice direction was in its early stages when the leave application was made, and in granting leave the Court allowed a certain latitude to the applicants - current procedure is that if the practice direction is not being complied with then the leave application is adjourned at the call-over to be heard on notice to the respondents - should have raised it at an earlier stage than on the day of the hearing - failure to attend court - instrument to facilitate the respondents if they wish to challenge the affidavit of verification - did not put the applicants on notice of their wish for the second-named applicant to attend - not appear to be appropriate to strike out the proceedings in limine - claim for injunction or declaration regarding breach of rights - disproportionality argument - claim regarding alleged duty to give an undertaking or to give reasons for not giving an undertaking - no potential litigant is obliged to give an undertaking - mere fact that an undertaking has been refused does not breach any rights of the applicants in and of itself - claim regarding requirement to consider all relevant matters when considering revocation or deciding on an undertaking – dispute as to whether or not the Court stated that the Minister was not going to consider the ECHR – DAR requested - whether the Minister is required to consider prospective rights under EU law in the context of an application to revoke a deportation order – Minister submits there is no EU authority for the proposition that there are any prospective rights of the unborn child - obligation to take into account all relevant matters and not to act in a disproportionate way - prospective legal position derivative on the rights of a person who was at the time of the revocation application shortly to be born - right of fairness of procedure in administrative law, which involves the right to have relevant considerations, including her prospective position, taken into account - a declaration that, in considering any application for revocation of the deportation order, the Minister is obliged to consider inter alia the prospective EU law position of the first-named applicant,- claim that deportation would be substantively unlawful because it is too close to the due date - claim that it would be disproportionate to deport the first-named applicant prior to revocation because she would have to be brought back shortly thereafter - in the very fact-specific circumstances of the present case, the chances of the Minister being required to readmit the first-named applicant to the State, if deported before the birth of the child, seemed relatively high because the child would have a right to come back as an Irish citizen - likely to require the first-named applicant’s readmission to the State under the Zambrano doctrine - appropriate to restrain the deportation of the first-named applicant unless and until that determination in the prospective Zambrano application is made, conditional on a Zambrano application being made promptly – judicial review granted –