The High Court extended time for F.N.’s judicial review and granted her requested relief, holding that the Dublin Circuit Family Court lacked jurisdiction to order a welfare report in an appeal that was not properly before it.
In a judgment delivered on 8 March 2019, Mr Justice Meenan found that the District Court had correctly declined to hear B.O’B’s application to enforce access orders made by the High Court. The orders at issue were High Court orders, and the judge was not satisfied that their reference of access issues to the Dublin Metropolitan District Court covered an alleged breach of those orders.
B.O’B had applied under section 18A(1) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 for enforcement of the High Court access orders. The District Court struck out the application in July 2017 for lack of jurisdiction. B.O’B appealed. In February 2018, the Circuit Court rejected an argument that it lacked jurisdiction and appointed a professional to prepare a report under section 47 of the Family Law Act 1995. A different appointee was named at a later hearing that month.
F.N. sought judicial review of the 23 February order appointing Professor Jim Sheehan to prepare the report. Her application was made about two and a half weeks beyond the three-month time limit. She said she had asked her former solicitors for advice about challenging the report order but received no response, and contacted her current solicitors on 5 June 2018. She met Professor Sheehan while awaiting advice, anxious not to breach a court order.
The judge accepted that the delay arose from circumstances outside F.N.’s control and found good and sufficient reason to extend time. He rejected B.O’B’s submission that the meeting with Professor Sheehan estopped her from pursuing judicial review, and said he could see no prejudice to B.O’B from the extension.
The court concluded that the enforcement application was not properly before the District Court and the ensuing appeal was not properly before the Circuit Court. It therefore held that the Circuit Court judge lacked jurisdiction to direct the section 47 report. The High Court granted the reliefs sought, including certiorari quashing the 23 February 2018 order. The judgment did not determine the underlying access arrangements.