The High Court made no order as to costs after a judicial review concerning a student’s school suspension became moot when the school’s board of management lifted the suspension.
The case had challenged an Appeals Committee decision refusing an appeal against the suspension. The student, identified in the judgment as S. F., was described as a secondary school student said to have autism and associated conditions. The judgment said the school had been told that a complaint alleged a very serious sexual assault against two boys at another school. The allegation was not a finding by the court.
The school suspended S. F. on 23 September 2015 on a protective basis, citing potential risk to other students. The suspension was renewed. After an appeal hearing on 8 December 2015, the committee refused the appeal by letter dated 5 January 2016. At that time, Garda and child-protection agency investigations, along with assessments, remained ongoing.
S. F. received leave to seek judicial review on 18 March 2016, asking the court to quash the committee’s decision and remit the matter for a new decision. On 4 May, the school board revoked the suspension following receipt of a risk assessment report prepared by a psychologist on behalf of Tusla. The judicial review then became moot, and the High Court hearing proceeded to determine costs only.
S. F. sought costs up to the leave application, arguing that the lifting of the suspension was the relevant event and that costs should follow it. The respondents sought their costs in full and argued that the suspension’s lifting was unrelated to the proceedings.
Mr Justice Noonan held that the proceedings became moot because of a decision by the school board, a non-party, made on the basis of other ongoing investigations. The circumstances were outside the control of both sides and appeared unconnected to the judicial review. Even if the challenge had succeeded, the committee’s decision would have been quashed and the matter returned for reconsideration; the court said that would not itself have lifted the suspension.
The judge did not decide the substantive challenge or assess whether it was reasonable to bring it, as that would involve considering its merits. He concluded that the justice of the case required no order as to costs.