The Court of Appeal has dismissed V.B.’s appeal against a High Court order correcting the title of an earlier order. The correction reflected that the Child and Family Agency was the only respondent in V.B.’s judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Allen delivered the ex tempore judgment on 23 January 2025, sitting alone under a statutory procedure for appeals against orders made under the slip rule. He considered whether the appeal should be referred to a three-judge division and concluded it should not.
V.B.’s judicial review application sought to challenge five Circuit Court orders and 31 District Court orders obtained by the Child and Family Agency. In February 2022, the High Court gave her leave to proceed against that agency alone, and only in relation to the specified reliefs. The High Court refused leave in February 2024. The title of the resulting order listed other bodies and a minister, although the judgment and proceedings identified the agency as the sole respondent.
After V.B. appealed that refusal, the Minister for Education and the Garda Commissioner applied to correct the order’s title. The High Court granted the application on 2 July 2024 under the slip rule, directing that the title reflect the proceedings between V.B. and the agency. V.B.’s separate appeal against the refusal of leave had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11 July 2024.
In the appeal decided on 23 January, V.B. argued, among other things, that the correction interfered with her earlier appeal and that different titles on court documents showed that multiple orders had been made. Allen J. rejected those arguments. He said the High Court corrected a clerical mistake in the written order; it did not change the order made by the judge or remove anyone from the Court of Appeal proceedings.
The Court also dismissed V.B.’s attempt in this appeal to revisit the District and Circuit Court orders and the refusal of leave, finding those matters unrelated to the order under challenge. The appeal was limited to the High Court’s 2 July 2024 correction.
Allen J. upheld the costs order made in the High Court. He concluded that the costs arose from V.B.’s opposition to correcting the title, after she had been asked to consent, rather than from the original drafting mistake. The appeal was dismissed.