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.
The applicants are respectively a Ukrainian national and an Irish Citizen, who were in a relationship for some time and married on 24 th April, 2003.
Following the making of the deportation order and the said letter the first named applicant was required to attend at Wicklow Garda Station and at other venues and he duly did so.
By letter dated 27 th August, 2003 the respondent acknowledged the first named applicant's said request for revocation of the deportation order, indicated that a "more substantive response will issue at the earliest opportunity" and advised that no arrangements were in place as yet for the deportation of the first named applicant.
The applicants' Solicitor sought an undertaking that the first named respondent would not be deported pending a determination of his application for residency. Such an undertaking was not forthcoming and by Order dated 2 nd September, 2003 the President of the High Court granted an interim injunction and on 5 th September, 2003 the respondent gave an undertaking that the first named applicant would not be deported pending the hearing of this action.
By order dated 23 rd March, 2004 Mr. Justice Kearns granted leave to apply by way of judicial review for the reliefs set forth at paragraphs d (1), (2) and (5) of the Statement of Grounds herein. They are:
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.