The High Court has refused a father leave to seek judicial review of District Court decisions about his access to his child, finding that he had an alternative remedy: a full appeal to the Circuit Court.
The ex parte application challenged decisions made on 26 July 2024 during ongoing family law proceedings. The father argued that he should have received a copy of a court-ordered report on the child and that the hearing was unfair because of the judge’s comments and decisions about witnesses. The High Court did not grant leave on any ground and said no further order was necessary.
The report, prepared under the Child Care Act 1991, was made available to the father. The judgment records that he made notes and used it while cross-examining its author. He said he had access beforehand and received a copy an hour before cross-examination and for its duration. The High Court found no evidence that he had lacked sufficient access or needed more time. He had not raised a concern about time or requested an extension during the hearing, the judge said, and his cross-examination led the witness to accept that more generous phone contact could be appropriate.
The District Court had refused to produce another witness for cross-examination and ordered limited contact, including phone access. The order provided less access than the father sought but more than the child’s mother had proposed. The High Court said disputes about the evidence, the witness decision and the extent of access could be addressed on appeal. It made no finding that the District Court judge had erred.
The father also alleged bias, referring to the judge’s comments about his own children and a direction restricting removal of the child from the jurisdiction without consent or court leave. The High Court rejected those grounds as a basis for judicial review, finding that the direction applied to the parent with custody and was unrelated to nationality. It said the comments did not establish subjective bias or fundamental unfairness. The District Court judge was not named in the title of the High Court judgment.
The High Court also refused to stay the next District Court hearing. The father had not specifically sought a stay in his notice of motion, and the court found no exceptional circumstances to justify one. The family proceedings remained ongoing, with the Circuit Court appeal available after an order was made.