Court of Appeal quashes visa refusal but vacates remittal as further applications moot the appeal.
Irlanda (IE)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's order quashing the Minister's refusal of a visa to Mr. Nwoke but vacated the remittal instruction. The court found the Minister's decision incorrectly conflated Article 41 of the Constitution with Article 8 ECHR rights. Although the legal principle was corrected, the appeal was ultimately mooted by new applications submitted by the applicant.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAArticle 41 of the Constitution; Article 8 ECHR: The Minister's decision to refuse a visa was not in accordance with law as it incorrectly applied Article 41 principles to Article 8 ECHR rights, necessitating a quash of the refusal but rendering the remittal moot due to subsequent applications.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IATesto completo
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] IECA 281
[2016 44]
Finlay Geoghegan J.
Irvine J.
Hogan J.
BETWEEN
ALISON FORD AND DAVID NWOKE
APPLICANTS/
RESPONDENTS
- AND -
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
RESPONDENT/
APPELLANT
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan delivered on the 27th day of October 2017
1. This appeal is from an order of the High Court (Eagar J.) made on 17th December, 2015 for the reasons set out in a written
judgment delivered on 19th November, 2015 Ford & Anor. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] IEHC 720.
2. Ms Ford is an Irish citizen and Mr Nwoke a Nigerian national. The order of the High Court quashed the decision of the Minister to
refuse to grant a visa to Mr Nwoke to enter and reside in the State. It also remitted the application of Mr Nwoke for reconsideration
by or on behalf of the Minister.
3. The appeal was heard at the same hearing as the appeals in Gorry & Anor. v. Minister for Justice and Equality and A.B.M. and B.A.
v. Minister for Justice and Equality in which judgments are being delivered today. At the hearing of the appeal, the Court was
informed that this appeal is now moot as further applications had been submitted by Mr Nwoke, one of which had been refused and a
third was about to be or had been delivered.
4. The trial judge herein in substance followed the approach of the trial judge in Gorry. There is no issue of principle addressed in the
High Court judgment herein which is not considered in the judgments delivered in Gorry to-day. In those circumstances there is no
requirement that the Court deliver a separate judgment on this appeal save to say the following.
5. The decision at issue in this judicial review application expressly stated that the same principles apply in relation to a consideration
of rights pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution as do in relation to Article 8 ECHR. For the reasons fully set out in the judgments in
Gorry that is not correct and it follows that the decision reached on that issue was not in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly the Court will uphold the order of the High Court that the decision of the Minister be quashed but having regard to the
fact that the appeal is moot by reason of the further applications will vacate that part of the High Court order that remitted the
application for further consideration on behalf of the Minister.