Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
                  A preliminary issue as to time is raised in relation to the Applicant�s entitlement to maintain these proceedings in circumstances where the papers were filed one day outside the three-month time period prescribed under O.84, r. 21(1) of Rules of the Superior Courts 1986.� The leave application was moved some eight days outside the prescribed period and accordingly an extension of time pursuant to O. 84, r. 21(3) is required.
                  No issue arises regarding the duration of the marriage or the period of married residence in the State in these proceedings.
�In this regard, information available to the Minister from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, indicates that the EU citizen was not exercising their rights through employment, self-employment, the pursuit of a course of study, involuntary unemployment or the possession of sufficient resources in accordance with Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations from 13/09/2013 to 23/09/2017.�
                  The Applicant was advised that:
�as the Union citizen was not residing in the State in conformity with the Regulations at the time of initiation of divorce, you do not qualify for retention of a residence card under Regulation 10(2) of the Regulations.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.