J.W. v The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors (No.2) (Approved)

J.W., H.G., E.W. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J.W.), P.W. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J.W.), E.W. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J.W.), J.W. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J.W.) AND P.W. (A MINOR SUING BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND J.W.)

1.������ In J.W. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2020] IEHC 500 , [2020] 10 JIC 1501 (Unreported, High Court, 15th October, 2020), I dismissed an application for judicial review of a deportation order against the second-named applicant.� I delivered that ruling ex tempore on 31st July, 2020 and published a formal written judgment on 15th October, 2020.

2.������ The applicants now seek leave to appeal and I have considered the relevant caselaw, including Glancr� Teoranta v. An Bord Plean�la [2006] IEHC 250 (Unreported, High Court, MacMenamin J., 13th July, 2006) and Arklow Holidays Ltd. v. An Bord Plean�la [2008] IEHC 2 (Unreported, High Court, Clarke J., 11th January, 2008).� I have heard helpful submissions from Mr. Paul O�Shea B.L. for the applicants and from Mr. Anthony Moore S.C. for the respondents.

3.������ The applicants� first question is � [w]hether in applying the test or principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 to an application to quash a decision made by the respondent to deport a non-EU national who is the parent of a minor children (sic) lawfully resident in the State, the High Court was correct in law in exercising its jurisdiction in judicial review on the basis that:

(a).��� It is not sufficient that an application merely asserts that the decision is irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate and invites the Court to reassess the balance of proportionality and / or reasonableness as between the interests of the State and the rights and interests of the applicants;