According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

"The applicants were a mother and daughter from Zimbabwe who claimed that the child’s father, VM, would subject the daughter to forced marriage.

The Tribunal accepted that the mother had been subject to violence several years ago but rejected the claims concerning the daughter, having applied section 28(7) of the International Protection Act and the benefit of the doubt, bearing in mind negative credibility indicators.

The applicants contended that considering section 28(7) of the Act as a basis to determine an applicant’s general credibility is unlawful. The Court followed the decision of Ferriter J. in AH and ors v IPAT and Anor [2022] IEHC 84 and quoted the relevant part of it: In short, it is clear that before the benefit of the doubt can be given in relation to undocumented aspects of an applicant’s claims, the applicant’s general credibility must be established (see s.28 (7)(e)). Once the applicant’s general credibility has been established, undocumented aspects of the applicant’s case do not need to be confirmed i.e. can get the benefit of the doubt where, but only where, the four other factors in s. 28 (7)(a) to (d) are satisfied.

The Court found: The Tribunal concluded that aspects of the applicants’ claim remained in doubt. The first named applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof resting on her to establish credibility and the Tribunal was entitled to decline to apply the benefit of doubt to those facts that remained in doubt. Certiorari refused"