The High Court has refused T.D.’s latest application for judicial review over family law orders, finding that the substantive relief was unsupported and that several claims repeated or attempted to reopen earlier disputes.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the application was the fourth time T.D. had brought constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights challenges concerning the legislation and its implementation. The court heard T.D. and S.D. in person, and submissions for the State.
The application challenged a Circuit Court order made on 25 July 2016. That order gave effect to earlier ancillary orders made when a decree of judicial separation was granted in 2008, including arrangements for the sale of the family home and lands. It directed T.D. to vacate by 4 August 2016 and nominated an auctioneer to conduct the sale. The order also provided for attachment and committal, subject to a stay if T.D. vacated by the specified date. The judge described the 2016 order as giving further effect to the 2008 orders; he did not grant the requested order quashing it.
Justice Humphreys said no basis had been established for the principal challenges. A separate challenge to a maintenance-related order from September 2015 was out of time, with no application or basis to extend the deadline. He also found that renewed challenges to the family law legislation and earlier decisions amounted to an abuse of process, including because related plenary proceedings were ongoing. The judge said an appeal was a more appropriate remedy for challenging the Circuit Court orders and noted that T.D. had already lodged an appeal concerning the July 2016 order.
The court’s order refused the substantive relief sought. It also permanently restrained publication of material tending to identify the non-professional parties, struck the judge from the respondent list and added S.D. as a respondent. The court did not decide whether to restrict T.D. from bringing future proceedings: S.D. had applied for an Isaac Wunder order, the State had liberty to bring a similar motion, and the parties were to be heard on that application.