The District Court refused the respondents’ application for costs for several dates in child care proceedings, making no order as to costs for those dates. It also extended by ten days the time to appeal an earlier costs order made on 11 December 2013.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2014, Judge Constantine O’Leary considered costs relating to applications under the Child Care Act 1991 brought by the Child and Family Agency, previously the Health Service Executive. The respondents are identified in the judgment only as KM and CW.
The judge said she had already ruled on costs for 13 November, 4 December and 11 December 2013, and had no jurisdiction to revisit those decisions. She had not expressly ruled on costs for four October dates or 8 January 2014. She ordered no order as to costs for 10, 15, 18 and 23 October 2013; 8, 29 and 31 January 2014; 21 February 2014; and the day of judgment.
The court had previously awarded costs for four hours on 13 November 2013, which the judge said reflected the respondents’ solicitor’s appearances on 10, 15 and 18 October. She explained that the award recognised the short notice and the solicitor’s familiarity with the respondent’s circumstances, while also accounting for what she considered unnecessary prolonging of the November hearing. The court had made no order as to costs otherwise.
The respondents sought costs for other proceedings, including interim care order applications. Their counsel argued that the parents had acted reasonably in defending the applications and relied on the circumstances of the case, including the family’s financial position and the child’s interests. The agency’s counsel opposed the application and addressed the history of the proceedings and the costs principles.
The judge concluded that the respondents had not established sufficient grounds to depart from the usual approach to costs. She said their defence was not unreasonable, but it had been unsuccessful, and that the merits of the interim care applications had already been decided. She noted that the High Court had upheld the orders, finding compelling reasons for them. Her judgment concerned costs; it did not determine those underlying care applications anew.
Separately, the judge extended by ten days from 13 March the time to appeal her 11 December 2013 costs order. She said she considered it possible that the respondents had not had a full opportunity to understand their options after that order. The extension addressed the deadline for an appeal; it did not decide the appeal itself.