The High Court has ruled that long-running judicial review proceedings brought by D.O’H. against Tusla should be struck out because of delay.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2026, Mr Justice Barr found that there had been more than two years of culpable inactivity and that allowing the case to proceed would expose Tusla to significant prejudice when witnesses were being asked to recall events dating back more than a decade.
The proceedings began in 2016 and arose from Tusla’s care of D.O’H.’s son, identified as DJ. D.O’H. alleged that the agency failed to provide adequate information about his son’s whereabouts and sufficient access to him, and that visits had been recorded without consent. Tusla denied the allegations.
The case reached a High Court hearing in 2018 but was interrupted by procedural issues concerning DJ’s participation. He was later removed as a co-applicant and represented through a guardian ad litem. An appeal on that issue was withdrawn in 2020 and the case returned to the High Court.
Mr Justice Barr accepted that some periods of inactivity were excusable, including time awaiting affidavits from the guardian ad litem and limited periods associated with the serious illness of D.O’H.’s solicitor’s wife. He also noted that Tusla’s solicitor had said in late 2021 that the agency would seek to have the case relisted.
However, the judge found that from June 2022 until Tusla brought its strike-out motion in January 2025, apart from eight weeks in 2023, the inactivity was culpable.
The court held that oral evidence would now be required on disputed issues of access and information. Requiring current or former Tusla staff to reconstruct meetings from before 2016 created a real risk of unfairness.
The judge rejected Tusla’s alternative argument that the case was moot, because D.O’H.’s damages claim remained alive even though DJ had turned 18 and left care. The final strike-out order and costs were left for further submissions and a later court listing.