The High Court has refused an application by D.O. to quash a child maintenance order made in Kilkenny Circuit Court, finding that a later hearing clarified the original order without changing its meaning.
In a judgment delivered on 3 April 2009, Mr Justice Hedigan rejected D.O.’s three grounds for seeking certiorari. He found that the evidence did not support the claim that the original order was made without financial evidence, that the judge contradicted her notes when clarifying it, or that she should have withdrawn because D.O. had brought separate judicial review proceedings.
The dispute concerned maintenance for three dependent children, identified in the judgment as H., C. and S. At a hearing on 2 June 2005, the Circuit Court ordered D.O. to cover H.’s college expenses and to pay €1,000 a month for the children, including H. when he was at home. The parties understood the terms differently, so a further hearing was held on 15 December 2005 at D.O.’s request.
The resulting written clarification said that the €1,000 monthly payment for C. and S. would include H.’s living expenses when he was at home, and that D.O. would pay H.’s college and associated expenses. D.O. argued that the clarification changed the earlier order.
Mr Justice Hedigan found that the December hearing was for clarification only. Comparing the Circuit Court clerk’s note of the June hearing with the clarified order, he concluded that both meant the same thing: the monthly payment covered the children’s maintenance at home, while D.O. was responsible for H.’s college expenses.
On the evidence before him, the judge accepted the notice party’s undisputed account that she had provided full financial disclosure at the June hearing. D.O. had financial documents with him but, according to his own evidence, was not asked to present them. The judge found that D.O. had given evidence about his difficulties and had objected to the amount claimed. He concluded that both sides had been heard and that the complaint about fair procedures was not sustained.
The judge also rejected the bias argument. He said the December hearing involved clarification rather than a new decision, and found that the judge’s discovery of the judicial review proceedings did not alter that task. The High Court refused the relief sought.