The High Court has refused B.L.’s application to quash a Circuit Family Court order directing that he be attached and brought before the court to show cause why he should not be committed for failing to comply with a 2008 judicial separation order.
In a judgment delivered on 22 May 2017, Mr Justice White dismissed the judicial review on all grounds. The challenged order and warrant were made on 18 February 2016. The High Court did not itself order B.L.’s imprisonment; the 2016 order required him to be brought before the Circuit Family Court to answer the committal issue.
B.L. argued that the procedure under Order 37 had not been followed in the required sequence and that the 2016 order did not specify the alleged contempt with sufficient detail. He also sought declarations concerning the listing of the committal motion. The High Court had granted leave to pursue those grounds, including the particularity issue.
The judge said that, having considered the judicial review pleadings and the records in the judicial separation proceedings, he concluded B.L. had seriously misled the High Court when seeking leave. The judgment said B.L.’s account had distorted the history and that he had not disclosed prior attachment and contempt applications and orders.
The original separation order was made on 8 April 2008 after a full hearing at which both parties were represented. It provided for the family home to be transferred to C.L., required B.L. to pay €80,000 towards a mortgage within six months, and directed that another farm be sold if the payment was not made. It also ordered maintenance of €300 a week for the children. The High Court said B.L. failed to pay the €80,000 and described his subsequent conduct as obstructing implementation of the order.
The committal motion was issued in October 2015. The Circuit Family Court directed that the 2008 order, with a penal endorsement, be personally served again. The High Court said it was served on B.L. on 13 December 2015, and found that he knew of the proceedings and adjournment dates but chose not to attend.
Justice White said it was desirable for an attachment and committal motion to specify the non-compliance. However, he found that personal service of the endorsed order had occurred and that, given the history of the proceedings, B.L. could not have been unaware of the obligations he had not met. The High Court held that the Circuit Family Court had determined the motion in accordance with law and that its order was properly made. The application was refused on all grounds.