The High Court struck out the Child and Family Agency’s statement of opposition in a judicial review brought by an anonymised applicant, and ordered the agency to file a replacement that complies with the court rules.
The ruling concerned a procedural motion about the adequacy of the agency’s opposition, not the underlying allegations against the applicant. The applicant sought judicial review relief relating to the agency’s handling of complaints about his treatment of children. He then asked the court to strike out the agency’s opposition because, he argued, it did not specify its grounds and supporting facts with enough precision.
The agency argued that parts of the judicial review had become moot or were premature because it proposed a fresh assessment of outstanding allegations. It said the applicant had received enough information and documentation to understand the proposed assessment and could make representations during it.
The court rejected that position as a basis for treating the proceedings as moot or premature. It noted that the agency’s September 2015 letter proposed a fresh assessment but also said children already interviewed would not be interviewed again. The judge said that correspondence suggested the new assessment might refer to interviews from the earlier process, which the agency had acknowledged was flawed. That point, the court said, had not been clearly set out in affidavit evidence.
The judgment said the agency’s statement of opposition failed to identify salient issues, including what had gone wrong in the previous investigation and what the agency proposed to do differently in the fresh assessment. It also criticised the agency for referring to a series of letters as evidence that the applicant had received the relevant information when those letters had not been exhibited with the opposition.
The court held that the applicant was entitled to know the case he had to answer and that the agency had to state its position clearly in its pleadings and affidavit evidence. It struck out the statement of opposition under Order 84, rule 22(5) of the Rules of the Superior Courts and directed the agency to submit a compliant replacement. The judgment did not determine the underlying complaints or the outcome of any fresh assessment.