B.S (India) & anor v The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors (No.3) (Approved)

1.������ In B.S. (India) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 367 , [2019] 5 JIC 1011 (Unreported, High Court, 10th May, 2019), I granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the deportation of the first-named applicant, and partially dismissed the proceedings.

2.������ In B.S. (India) v. Minister for Justice Equality (No. 2) [2020] IEHC 401 , [2020] 8 JIC 1701 (Unreported, High Court, 17th August, 2020), I granted a substantive injunction in fairly limited terms in favour of the applicants, and dismissed the balance of the remaining reliefs sought.

5.������ In this question, the State is yet again complaining about an order allowing an amendment to pleadings.� Welcome to Groundhog Day.

6.������ Question 2 is about whether one can seek an amendment based on matters that subsequently arise including new reliefs not pleaded when the proceedings commenced.� There is nothing to that objection for a host of reasons.� While Ms. Stack did complain about � rolling amendments �, she didn�t argue at the hearing that I didn�t have jurisdiction to grant the amendment, or as question 2 puts it, the court � wasn�t entitled � to allow the amendment. So it can�t be constitutionally proper to ventilate such a point for the first time on appeal.�

10.���� O�Donnell J. (McKechnie and Laffoy JJ. concurring) in O'Neill v. Appelbe [2014] IESC 31 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 10th April, 2014), at para. 14, emphasised that �[t]he High Court, and this Court on appeal, has a very extensive power of amendment where it is necessary to permit the real issues in dispute to be determined. �