The case concerned an Algerian national. The applicant applied for international protection in Ireland in 2020, on the grounds of conflict between the applicant's father and his uncle which escalated following the death of the applicant's father in 2006. The applicant stated that his uncle had tried to attack him through a window at the bakery where he worked. 

The International Protection Office (IPO) acknowledged that the applicant's uncle had wrongly believed that the applicant had reported him to the police for drug offences, which was a material fact. However, the IPO determined that the applicant was likely attacked while sleeping in the bakery and concluded that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that his uncle was responsible for the attack. According to the applicant, the aforementioned conclusion was unreasonable and failed to take pertinent factors into account. 

The applicant filed an appeal before the High Court without pursuing an appeal before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) as the applicant felt that the errors found were so fundamental that the statutory procedure for appeal to the IPAT was not appropriate to address the applicant's complaints. The High Court rejected the applicant's appeal, ruling that the appeal to the IPAT served as a reasonable remedy. Moreover, the High Court ruled that the situation was not one of the rare cases when a court might review the IPO's first instance decision.