Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

In *Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)*, heard before Judge Antoni Lucev, the applicant sought judicial review concerning a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute arose at the point when the court was scheduled to deliver its judgment on the substantive application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether it possessed the power to re-open the substantive application for judicial review at the time judgment was due to be delivered, following an oral application made by the applicant. This involved considering the court's inherent jurisdiction and the procedural rules governing the finalisation of proceedings.

Judge Lucev determined that the court's jurisdiction to re-open a case for further argument or evidence generally ceases once judgment has been delivered. While acknowledging the court's inherent power to prevent a miscarriage of justice, this power is exercised sparingly and typically before judgment. The court found that the applicant had not presented a compelling case to justify re-opening the proceedings at such a late stage, particularly as the grounds for the oral application were not novel or unforeseen. The court therefore declined to re-open the case.