Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Minister did not carry out extensive examination of applicants’ personal circumstance when revoking right to remain
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court extends time to bring an application for judicial review, and sets aside a decision to revoke the applicant’s right to remain in the State on the basis that his marriage was one of convenience, the court finding that the Minister did not engage with the evidence that had been produced and did not carry out an extensive examination of the applicants’ personal circumstance.
Application to have two decisions set aside by the court – seek an extension of time within which to bring the present proceedings – outside the time limit provided for in the Rules of the Superior Courts – refused residence permit on the first marriage was a marriage of convenience for the purposes of obtaining residence status in the State – decision reaffirmed on review – Order 84, rule 21(1) and (3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts - court is not satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to extend the time within which a challenge may be brought to the first decision - delay period represents a time of over 3 years, which is very significant - the court is satisfied that there is good and sufficient reason to extend the time allowed to challenge the second decision of the respondent – matter remitted back to the Minister for review – impugned decision set aside.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
