NI High Court: Declaratory order made against Northern Ireland’s Executive Committee for third time

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] NIKB 44,[2026] NIKB 48
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Gerry McAlinden

Delivering two related judgments for the High Court in August, Mr Justice Gerry McAlinden highlighted the “dysfunctional state of devolved government” in Northern Ireland and that “the Executive Committee that have been in place from 2007 up to the present date have failed to comply with the duty imposed upon the Executive Committee by the enactment of section 28D of the NIA 1998 and that two other High Court Judges have previously granted declarations against the Executive Committee highlighting this unlawful failure.”

Karen Quinlivan QC and Aidan McGowan appeared for the applicant instructed by KRW Law Solicitors, Philip McAteer appeared for the Executive Committee for Northern Ireland (first respondent) instructed by the Departmental Solicitor’s Office, Dr Tony McGleenan KC and Ms Laura Curran appeared for the Minister for Communities (second respondent), Mr Jamie Bryson (notice party and applicant in a related judicial review) appeared in person.

Background

The applicant, Conradh na Gaeilge, applied for a third time for judicial review arising out of the failure of the Executive Committee of Northern Ireland to adopt an Irish Language Strategy pursuant to its statutory obligations under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

With declarations having already been made to the effect that the Committee was in breach of its duty under s.28D of the 1998 Act, Conradh na Gaeilge sought further declarations as against the Committee and renewed a previously unsuccessful application for an order of mandamus to compel the Committee to adopt a strategy.

Conradh na Gaeilge also joined the Minister for Communities to the application, alleging that the Committee had delegated the tasks of preparing a draft strategy and presenting it to the Committee for adoption, and the minister failed to perform those delegated tasks.

The High Court

Mr Justice McAlinden observed that in circumstances where two High Court judges had already granted declarations against the Committee, its failure to adopt a strategy called into “serious doubt” its commitment to uphold the rule of law, “a commitment which each Minister making up the Executive Committee is duty bound to fulfil under the provisions of the Ministerial Code.”

Noting that the “real importance” in the case was that rule of law issue, the court considered the events which had transpired since March 2021 following the conclusion of the second judicial review case, finding that the Department of Communities teams involved in the project “have and are applying themselves tirelessly and diligently to the task of finalising a draft Irish Language Strategy” and had adopted a rational and robust methodology.  

While accepting that Minister for Communities Gordon Lyons MLA, acting as a delegate of the Committee, had no direct individual legal duty under the 1998 Act, the court was satisfied that Minister Lyons had a duty to act rationally and lawfully in the performance of his duties and that up until the last day of the hearing of the case before the court, he had not provided a response to the detailed submissions sent to him for approval by his department in February 2024 and made no attempt to explain that omission on affidavit. 

In the circumstances, the court determined that a declaration should issue highlighting this illegality and irrationality and that if the failure to respond had not been remedied by the date of its judgment, a mandatory order would issue compelling his response.

Observing that the Executive Committee collectively was in continued breach of its legal duty as clearly set out in s.28D of the 1998 Act, Mr Justice McAlinden considered whether the making of a mandatory order as against the Committee was appropriate, particularly in light of R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45.

Noting that in Imam, there was a statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation to a person eligible for local authority assistance, the judge distinguished the case before him on the basis that “The duty here is to adopt an Irish Language Strategy and before it is adopted, a comprehensive and meaningful draft Irish Language Strategy must be designed, agreed by the Executive Committee, put out for consultation and then finally adopted by the Executive Committee.”

The judge continued, “The whole issue of the need to agree a draft Irish Language Strategy before adopting it is a completely different form of action from providing a person in need with suitable accommodation. To my mind it is difficult to see how the duty under section 28D of the NIA 1998 is amenable to a meaningful mandatory order.”

The court’s view that a mandatory order was inappropriate as against the Committee was reinforced by the efforts of the Department for Communities and Cross-Departmental Working Group teams, who were “doing their very best” to progress the draft strategy for presentation to the Committee.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court afforded the parties a period of 14 days to inter alia provide drafts of the declarations and order of mandamus.

In a supplemental judgment, delivered on 28 August 2026, Mr Justice McAlinden considered updated evidence which demonstrated that Minister Lyons had in fact responded to his department on 7 May 2026, but that the correspondence and minutes of meetings in April and May 2026 had been omitted from the affidavits tendered on behalf of the Department.

In the circumstances, the court was of the view that only one order, the declaratory order as against the Executive Committee, should issue in the proceedings.

In the Matter of an Application by Conradh na Gaeilge for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 44;
In the Matter of an Application by Conradh na Gaeilge for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 48