R. (L.) & Ors v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

The recommendation referred to was one of two made by the Appeals Authority in this case dealing with the Applicants who are all members of the same family and whilst the extract as quoted, appeared in one only, nevertheless the hearing of this application proceeded as if it was contained in both and accordingly this judgment likewise proceeds on that basis.

It is clear that paragraph 3 of Rule 20 is dealing with a situation where an amendment is sought during the making of an application for leave, whereas, following the decision in MoUoy's case, Rule 23 is dealing with any and all other applications to amend, provided that where the originating document is a Motion Paper the application is made after the return date has passed and that where the originating document is a Summons, the application is made after the Summons has issued.

This part of the judgment, I believe was dealing with a situation where the grounds sought to be added had not previously been advanced, and had not been the subject matter of any application to this Court and thus had not met with any judicial scrutiny. Such a situation is quite unlike the present application. Accordingly, in my view this passage does not lend support to the proposition as urged and as a result I will have to refuse the application to amend and in consequence confine the Applicants to the grounds upon which leave was originally obtained.

See Tang -v- The Minster for Justice . (1996) 2 ILRM 46 and in addition and in particular the Judgement of Mr. Justice Geoghegan in the Laurentiu case, supra.

Whilst this Court is grateful for the receipt of such Affidavit and whilst, in the absence of debate I would express no concluded view on the appropriateness or otherwise of a named Appeals Authority in swearing such an Affidavit, nevertheless, because the recommendation in my view speaks for itself and because the evidence tendered and procedures adopted at the oral hearing, can all be placed before this Court through the Affidavit of Mr. Quinn, I do not propose to rely on the Affidavit of the said Appeals Authority.