“Ex Motu Mootness” – The High Court’s Inherent Power to Terminate Proceedings Lacking a Live Controversy
Commentary on Croghan & Ors v Collins & Ors (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 413)

1. Introduction

Croghan & Ors v Collins & Ors was triggered by a proposed International Protection Accommodation Service (“IPAS”) centre on the former Crown Paints site in Coolock, Dublin. Three local lay litigants – Alan Croghan, Amanda Farrelly and Melissa Kelly – sued a broad array of defendants including the site developer (Townbe Unlimited Company), State actors (the Ministers, the Garda Commissioner and the Government), and Dublin City Council. Their 84-page claim sought far-reaching declaratory, injunctive and mandatory relief relating to immigration policy, planning exemptions, environmental law, police conduct at protests and alleged constitutional violations.

Mid-litigation, the Government publicly abandoned the Coolock IPAS proposal. This factual volte-face prompted Mr Justice David Holland to convene the parties and – of his own motion – raise whether the action had become “moot”, i.e. no longer presented a live controversy suitable for judicial determination. Despite all parties urging the Court to proceed (the plaintiffs to obtain their declarations, the defendants to obtain a strike-out), Holland J held the issues tied to the IPAS project were now moot, declined to hear them, and invited submissions on what – if anything – remained justiciable.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Own-motion jurisdiction affirmed. The Court confirmed it can raise and decide mootness ex motu even where every party wishes to continue.
• IPAS controversies declared moot. Affidavit evidence that the State had definitively abandoned the Coolock IPAS scheme meant there was no longer a “tangible and concrete dispute”.
• Discretion not exercised to hear the moot. Applying Irish authorities, Holland J refused to entertain the moot because the issues were neither “capable of repetition yet evading review” nor raised the type of fundamental individual rights that might justify an exceptional departure.
• Next steps left open. The Court will hear parties as to any surviving, non-moot matters (e.g. personal assault claims against the Gardaí) and on costs/directions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Farrell v Governor of St Patrick’s Institution [2012] IEHC 429 and O’Meara v Westmeath Co Co [2025] IEHC 192 – both emphasise that mootness protects judicial resources and prevents advisory opinions. Holland J quotes their description of cases lacking “immediacy or force of reality”.
• Lofinmakin v Minister for Justice [2013] 4 IR 274 – reiterates need for a “tangible and concrete dispute”, foundational to Holland J’s mootness finding.
• Irwin v Deasy [2010] IESC 35 and O’Mahony v Minister for Health [2025] IEHC 45 – establish that discretion to hear a moot is “exceptional, reluctant and sparing”. Holland J adopts this standard.
• U.S-derived formula “capable of repetition, yet evading review” introduced via G v Collins [2004] IESC 38; relied on in O’Mahony. Holland J holds the present dispute fails the second limb (“evading review”).
• O’Brien v PIAB [2007] 1 IR 328 – illustrates that an appeal may remain live owing to costs/precedential stakes; distinguished on its facts.
• M.C. [2021] 2 IR 166 and SY (Dare) [2023] IEHC 187 – show exceptions where serious, ongoing breaches of fundamental rights justified proceeding despite mootness; held inapplicable here because no comparable rights violation or systemic avoidance of review existed.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Identification of Changed Facts. Government’s 15 May 2025 announcement; affidavits from the Minister and Townbe confirmed “no realistic prospect” of an IPAS centre on the site.
2. Own-Motion Power. Citing separation-of-powers concerns and prudent resource management, the Court held it must decline to decide abstract questions even if the parties cooperate to keep them alive.
3. Mootness Test Applied. The litigation’s sole factual “hook” for most claims was the now-cancelled project; thus no live dispute.
4. Exceptional Discretion Considered. Factors weighed:
   • Potential repetition of disputes – yes;
   • But not likely to evade review – future IPAS challenges can be litigated in real time;
   • No pressing individual rights breach (unlike M.C. or SY);
   • Another pending case already reserved for judgment on similar legal issues, reducing urgency.
   Result: discretion refused; no advisory opinion will be issued.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Procedural Efficiency. Reinforces that Irish courts will police their own dockets and terminate proceedings lacking a live factual matrix, even contrary to party consensus. Expect earlier mootness enquiries, especially in fast-moving public-law disputes.
• Strategic Litigation Adjustments. Activist litigants cannot count on keeping broad, policy-oriented claims alive once the underlying facts vanish. Developers and State bodies gain clarity that abandoning a project can neutralise related litigation.
• Guidance for Future IPAS/Planning Challenges. While substantive planning/environmental points remain unresolved, Holland J’s framework signals that such challenges must be anchored to an extant proposal.
• Judicial Resource Allocation. The decision echoes budgetary and workload concerns referenced in Lofinmakin. It may prompt more robust case-management directions focused on live issues.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mootness: a case is moot when intervening events remove the real dispute, so any judgment would be merely academic.
• Own-motion / ex motu: an action taken by the Court of its own initiative, without a party’s application.
• “Capable of repetition, yet evading review”: U.S-origin doctrine adopted in Ireland; permits courts to hear a moot when the issue is inherently time-limited and likely to escape review in future too.
• IPAS: International Protection Accommodation Service – State system providing accommodation to asylum seekers.
• Planning exemption (s.5 PDA 2000): mechanism for a planning authority to declare a proposed development exempt from the need for planning permission.
• Aarhus Convention & Public Participation Directive: EU instruments requiring access to environmental information and participation in environmental decision-making.

5. Conclusion

Croghan & Ors v Collins & Ors establishes a clear precedent that Irish courts may, and should, invoke their inherent jurisdiction to weed out moot proceedings even where all litigants press ahead. Justice Holland’s judgment distils and applies modern Irish case-law on mootness, emphasising prudent use of judicial power, avoidance of advisory opinions, and the high threshold required to justify hearing a moot. Litigants pursuing policy-driven declarations must now be acutely aware that once the factual scaffolding is dismantled, the courtroom door may close – not because their legal arguments are necessarily unsound, but because the Constitution tasks the judiciary with resolving only live, concrete disputes.