The High Court refused an application for judicial review challenging two District Court decisions that denied an applicant costs in interim care proceedings. Mr Justice White held that the first decision disclosed no ground for judicial review and that the second was based on the merits, with a Circuit Court appeal available to the applicant.
The case concerned care proceedings brought by the Child and Family Agency under the Child Care Act 1991. The judgment recounts allegations made by the applicant’s daughter, identified as J, that he had sexually abused her and fathered her child, D. Those were allegations in the care proceedings, not findings made in this judicial review. DNA testing established the applicant was D’s father, the judgment says.
The Agency obtained an emergency care order in Monaghan District Court on 27 July 2015. The matter returned to Dundalk District Court the next day. An interim care order was made for D and G until 13 August 2015; T was covered by a private care arrangement acceptable to the Agency. The applicant, who was initially unrepresented, later had solicitors and counsel. He agreed to provide a DNA sample during discussions at court.
After the interim care order was made, the applicant sought costs. The District Court refused. The interim order was renewed on several later dates, and on 17 September 2015 the applicant sought costs for all the interim hearings. District Judge Hamill refused that application after receiving written submissions and hearing both sides. The judgment records that the judge considered the applicant’s conduct, including his knowledge that he might be the child’s father, and gave reasons for refusing costs.
The applicant argued in the High Court that the 28 July refusal lacked reasons and that the possibility of criminal prosecution for incest, including the DNA test, made legal representation and costs exceptional. The Agency argued that judicial review was unsuitable because the District Court had applied the relevant costs principles and an appeal was available.
Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Child and Family Agency v O.A., the High Court noted the general position that costs are not awarded to a parent in District Court care proceedings, subject to exceptional circumstances. It held that the judge on 28 July had followed that default position and that the absence of reasons for refusing costs did not establish a reviewable error. The court also said the DNA and potential prosecution arguments had not been put to either District Court judge, the care proceedings were not criminal proceedings, and the applicant was not required by law to provide a sample.
The High Court concluded that the 17 September decision had no legal or jurisdictional deficiency. It refused judicial review of both costs decisions and said the applicant’s remedy, if dissatisfied with the later decision, was an appeal to the Circuit Court. The judgment did not determine the underlying care allegations.