The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a son challenging orders made in proceedings concerning his mother’s care and welfare. The court upheld the dismissal of his motion and the orders governing how he could take further steps in the case and bring applications concerning his mother.
The case was brought by P.C. against 13 defendants, including the Minister for Health and the Health Service Executive. His 2017 plenary summons alleged, among other things, that his mother had been falsely imprisoned and mistreated in hospital, and that drugs were administered without authorisation. Those were allegations in the summons, not findings made in this appeal.
P.C.’s motion sought restrictions on medication and visitation, as well as orders concerning exercise, physiotherapy and treatment. He did not attend the High Court hearing on 9 October 2017, although the Court of Appeal found he knew the matter was listed before the President of the High Court that day. The President dismissed the motion, stayed the proceedings subject to permission to take further steps on notice to the defendants, and directed that proceedings addressing his mother’s life, liberty, health or welfare be brought through the wardship proceedings, with notice to the General Solicitor.
The Court of Appeal rejected P.C.’s claim that he had been taken by surprise. It said the Rules of the Superior Courts provided a route to seek a rehearing after non-attendance, and that he had instead appealed. The court concluded that he had at least been negligent in failing to attend. It also said he could not raise for the first time on appeal an objection that the President should have recused himself.
The judges said P.C. could not seek orders asserting rights belonging to his mother or sister, who were not parties to these proceedings. He could pursue a claim concerning his own right to visit his mother, but the High Court had made no determination on that claim because he did not attend to advance it. The appeal court said it could not consider that issue afresh.
The judgment distinguished the wardship order made in August 2016, which the Supreme Court had found procedurally flawed, from other orders in the wardship proceedings, which it had held lawful. The Court of Appeal concluded that this flaw did not remove the President’s jurisdiction to make the orders under appeal. It dismissed P.C.’s appeal.