Summary of High Court Opinion (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application by the Applicant for an award of costs following judicial review proceedings challenging a decision of the first named respondent (hereinafter "Company A") dated 11 December 2023, which had deemed the Applicant's international protection application inadmissible pursuant to Section 21(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015. The second respondent issued a related determination and direction dated 8 January 2024. The respondents consented to an order of certiorari quashing the impugned decision; the sole outstanding issue before the Court was the question of costs.

Relevant factual matters (as established in the judgment) include that the Applicant was granted refugee status in The State as an unaccompanied minor in October 2021 and later made an international protection application in Ireland. Company A's decision of 11 December 2023 ran to over 20 pages and, among other bases, recorded that Company A had sought further information from the Applicant at the appeal stage in the form of written questions sent by email on 27 November 2023 and that "no response was forthcoming." The email was sent to two addresses associated with the Applicant's Attorney's office; Company A's email logs showed receipt at the Applicant's Attorney's inbound mail gateway and a status described as "queued mail for delivery." No bounce-back was recorded. The Applicant's Attorney averred that the email was not received in his inbox; an IT investigation instructed by the Applicant's Attorney could not establish successful delivery to either mailbox but could not prove a negative.

On these facts the Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in January 2024 seeking certiorari and various declaratory remedies, alleging, inter alia, breach of fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice because the Applicant had not been given the questions or an opportunity to answer. Once the true position regarding the non-receipt of the email became known through the course of the proceedings, Company A accepted that the Applicant had not in fact refused to provide information he had never seen and indicated that it would consent to certiorari. A letter dated 15 October 2024 from the respondents set out an offer including consent to certiorari and proposed that the proceedings be struck out with no order on costs; that proposal was subject to clarification.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in the circumstances where Company A consented to certiorari quashing its decision (on a fair procedures basis because requested questions were not received), the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply such that the Applicant should be awarded costs.
2. Whether there were special circumstances sufficient to justify a departure from the ordinary rule on costs, including the respondents' contention that they acted reasonably and that the Applicant was not "entirely successful" within the meaning of Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
3. Whether the respondents' conduct (including their administrative processes for serving questions by email and their subsequent consent to certiorari) should result in no order as to costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• Company A asserted it sent the email(s) requesting further information and that the delivery status indicated receipt at the Applicant's Attorney's inbound mail gateway; no fault lay with Company A in relation to the sending of the email.
• Company A contended that it acted fairly, reasonably and efficiently in the administration of appeals and that its subsequent consent to certiorari was a narrow concession limited to the fair procedures point concerning non-receipt of the questions; no concession was made on other grounds or reliefs sought.
• Company A relied on the Court's general discretion over costs, including reference to Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, and submitted that there should be no order as to costs because the applicant had not been entirely successful in the sense contemplated by that statute.
• Company A referenced authorities on mootness in written submissions (though it accepted the matter was not technically moot because Company A's decision was functus officio), but maintained the existence of other grounds not conceded was relevant to the costs discretion.

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant submitted that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should apply and that there were no special circumstances justifying departure from that rule.
• The Applicant argued that certiorari was the principal relief sought and that once Company A offered consent to certiorari, the Applicant was entitled to accept that concession and seek costs on the ordinary footing.
• The Applicant's Attorney acted reasonably by accepting the standalone offer of certiorari while reserving the costs issue for the Court's decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Gillane described the factual matrix as unusual and situated the matter within a wider context of related "Greek Transfer" cases but focused the analysis on the narrow issue of costs. The Court's reasoning proceeded by isolating the facts relevant to the exercise of the costs discretion and by declining to engage in detailed technical inquiries beyond the affidavits and correspondence before it.

The Court made the following key findings of fact and legal observations (as expressly stated):

• The evidence established that Company A sent the email of 27 November 2023 requesting further information and that, according to Company A's email logs, it was received at the Applicant's Attorney's inbound mail gateway with a status indicating "queued mail for delivery." There was no evidence of a bounce-back to Company A.
• For unspecified technical reasons delivery beyond the inbound mail gateway could not be confirmed by Company A and was not within the sender's control; the Applicant's Attorney's affidavit stated the email was not received in his inbox, and his IT consultant could not establish successful delivery to the mailboxes but could not "prove a negative."
• The Court refused to "go behind" the Applicant's Attorney's affidavit or to make inferences that would contradict the sworn account of non-receipt.
• The Court accepted that Company A, once made aware of the non-receipt, acted responsibly and properly by consenting to certiorari on the fair procedures point, albeit without admitting liability on other grounds.
• The Court noted the legal significance that an IPAT decision is functus officio such that certiorari was the appropriate and necessary remedy to address the infirmity in the decision; this distinguished the case from other administrative processes where a decision-maker might withdraw or amend a decision without judicial intervention.
• On the exercise of the Court's discretion under the ordinary rules governing costs, and taking into account the conduct of both parties (Company A's responsible concession and the Applicant's reasonable approach to accepting that concession while reserving costs), the Court concluded that there were no special circumstances to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.

The Court expressly considered, but did not ultimately rely upon, arguments relating to mootness and to other unadjudicated grounds of judicial review; these were not determinative of the costs issue.

Holding and Implications

COSTS AWARDED TO THE APPLICANT

Holding: The Court held that, on the facts of this case and exercising its discretion, the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applied and costs should be awarded to the Applicant. The Court accepted Company A's concession of certiorari on a fair procedures basis and found no special circumstances justified a departure from the normal costs rule.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the Applicant is entitled to an award of costs for the judicial review proceedings in which Company A consented to certiorari quashing its decision of 11 December 2023.
• The Court emphasised that the concession was narrowly based on fair procedures arising from non-receipt of the email and that no broader admission of liability was made by Company A on other grounds.
• The judgment does not assert the creation of any new legal precedent; it is a discretionary ruling applying established principles on costs to an unusual factual scenario. The Court declined to prescribe administrative procedures for Company A (for example, imposing requirements such as read receipts) and noted the practical constraints on the respondent's administrative processes given their caseload.

Document prepared from the provided judgment text. All personal names, institutional identifiers and geographic locations have been anonymized and standardized in accordance with the summary instructions.