The applicant, a Georgian national, applied for international protection in Ireland. The applicant stated that in August 2012, there was an attempt by an armed group to cross the border into Georgia when he was working as border guard for the Georgian government. Several people lost their lives, including members of the armed group who were shot by Georgian authorities and later identified as Kist citizens of Georgia. In a trial where the applicant was asked to identify a man said to be a go between for the Georgian authorities and the armed group, the applicant felt he was singled out by members of the Kist community who believe he was personally responsible for the deaths in the community during this incident.

To further investigate the applicant's claim for international protection, an interview was conducted on behalf of the International Protection Office (IPO). The applicant was given ten working days to submit to the IPO evidence of his bank statements and proof that he attended the Tbilisi police school. The applicant submitted these papers electronically. However, according to the IPO's assessment, the applicant failed to provide any supporting documentation for his application. Although the decision-maker acknowledged that the applicant is a citizen of Georgia, it was said that the applicant lacked credibility as he has not shown a contract of employment on his job as a border guard.

The applicant claimed that the decision maker incorrectly claimed that the applicant had not provided the requested or promised documentation and that the decision maker disregarded the applicant's other international protection claims regarding his involvement in the incident and the alleged threatening behaviour he had received from his employer and Kist community members.

The applicant appealed the decision to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). Upon learning of the apparent irregularity, the IPAT opted to postpone the appeal hearing and issued a statutory request to the IPO for additional inquiries and information that the Tribunal may require.

The IPAT denied the appeal, concluding that there was no harm caused by the disregard of the documentation submitted after the interview. It was determined that the applicant had not made a clear and compelling case that an injustice had been done that cannot be remedied on appeal. The applicant was further granted a full oral hearing on appeal, which is not normally granted because of Georgia's designation as a safe country of origin. 

The High Court upheld the appeal and issued a certiorari order as the first-instance decision was rendered in a way that compromised the process's integrity and violated the standards of fair proceedings. According to the High Court, the applicant was entitled to have any supporting documents taken into account at first instance and appeal. The applicant's willingness to assist with the investigation of his claims through the submission of documents requested by the IPO was acknowledged by the High Court. It was also noted that these documents were not taken into consideration due to an administrative error on the part of the IPO and that their relevance was not taken into consideration when evaluating the credibility of the applicants claim. The High Court concluded that "the availability of a fair appeal does not cure the absence of a fair first instance decision in this case".