The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a divorced father who challenged a Circuit Court decision refusing to vary maintenance payments for his three children.
The applicant, identified as R. McC., had divorced D.J. in Dublin Circuit Court in June 1998. A consent order made at that time required him to make periodic payments for the benefit of their children.
In November 1999, he applied to vary or amend the maintenance order. Judge Yvonne Murphy considered the application and delivered her decision in January 2000.
Under section 22(2) of the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, a court may vary periodic payments where it considers that appropriate because of changed circumstances or new evidence. Judge Murphy found that the relevant change identified by the applicant was that he had taken on a larger mortgage for his own requirements. She concluded that this did not justify altering the maintenance arrangements and refused his application.
R. McC. then sought permission from the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings to quash that decision. The High Court refused leave, finding that Judge Murphy had heard the application and acted within her jurisdiction. Any mistake she might have made was therefore a matter for appeal rather than judicial review.
The Supreme Court agreed. Chief Justice Keane held that the Circuit Court’s assessment of whether circumstances had changed sufficiently was plainly a decision it had legal authority to make. He also rejected the argument that the decision was so unreasonable that judicial review was justified.
The Supreme Court further held that the Circuit Court judgment had properly been delivered otherwise than in public because it formed part of proceedings under the 1996 Act, which required such family-law proceedings to be heard in camera.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order was affirmed.