Somali nationals entitled to legal costs over State's inaction to remove them, High Court rules
High Court Reporter
Two Somali nationals are entitled to the costs of their legal challenges to orders removing them from Ireland, after the cases were rendered moot when the State failed to enact the orders inside the statutory time period.
At the High Court on Friday, Judge Anthony Barr ruled that the two plaintiffs, who are unrelated, should be awarded their costs for judicial reviews against the 'Return Orders', as the State did not enact them inside the required six-month period.
The legal challenges were taken by the two applicants against the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General over the costs of their application to have the Return Orders judicially reviewed.
Judge Barr, in ruling in favour of the two applicants represented by Brian Burns of BKC solicitors, said the matter had become moot, therefore rendering the judicial review challenge proceedings inoperable.
The judge said the Chief State Solicitor had written to the applicants saying the matter, due to delay, could be struck out with no order as to costs - meaning both the State and the applicants were responsible for their own legal fees.
However, the applicants did not accede to this and pursued their costs, as they argued there was a "unilateral" failing by the State to execute the return orders.
Judge Barr said the first applicant, a female, had been issued with a return order to leave the State on April 30th, 2025, but was then granted leave by the High Court to challenge the order on September 2nd that year, with the State being notified of the permission to challenge ten days later.
Her proceedings were declared to be moot on November 8th, 2025.
The male applicant had been issued with a return order on May 28th, 2025, but obtained leave to challenge the order on September 15th, 2025.
His return order challenge was declared to be moot on December 5th, 2015.
In his judgment on Friday, Judge Barr said: "The facts of these two cases are relatively straightforward. Each applicant was served with a return order that they would be removed from the State to a third country."
"The Minister, for whatever reason, had not executed the return order during the period of its operative validity," said the judge.
He added that "the court has not been told why the return order in each case was not executed".
Judge Barr said there was a "unilateral" failing of the State - making the proceedings moot - and he was "satisfied" that this was due to the State's "inaction", thereby making both applicants entitled to their costs for their separate legal challenges.
Judge Barr said there were no extraneous events affecting the case and that neither applicant acted in any way to disentitle them from their costs.
He ordered that costs, in default of agreement, should be awarded to the Somali applicants for the preparation and proceedings of their respective judicial reviews, limited to the dates when each became moot.
