The High Court has refused an application by Mr R to transfer children’s relocation proceedings to the Circuit Court, leaving the case listed for a hearing before the High Court on 24–26 March 2021. The ruling decided which court would hear the relocation case; it did not decide whether the children could move to Ruritania.
Mr R argued that the standalone proceedings should be heard in a lower court, and that related issues should be dealt with alongside the parents’ judicial separation case. He also raised the loss of a de novo appeal route, possible duplicated legal costs and a risk of injustice if the children’s welfare issues were considered separately. His application was made under Order 70A, rule 15 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which allows remittal where the High Court considers it to be in the interests of justice.
Justice Max Barrett said Mr R bore the burden of establishing that remittal was in the interests of justice. The court held that the High Court had concurrent first-instance jurisdiction over the relocation proceedings and that such proceedings could lawfully be brought separately from separation or divorce proceedings. It rejected the argument that the High Court lacked jurisdiction.
In weighing the application, the judge considered the family circumstances and the need to progress the relocation case promptly. The two older children had expressed a wish to return to Ruritania, with the eldest appearing especially unhappy in Ireland; the youngest was too young for meaningful engagement. The judgment also recorded that Ms R wished to return to work there, while Mr R had raised concern about the prospect of living in Ireland while his children were far away. These matters were considered in deciding where the case should be heard, not in determining the relocation application itself.
The judge said the High Court could hear the case within about four weeks, and did not believe the Circuit Court could match that timetable after a transfer. He found there was no substantive evidence of the parties’ likely legal costs, so the asserted risk of duplicated costs was not established. Although the case had not advanced far in the High Court, the court considered that the children’s best interests and the need to avoid further delay weighed against remittal.
The court declined to remit the proceedings. It said it would proceed to hear the relocation case at the end of March as planned. No relocation decision was made in this judgment.