The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by R.T. to a District Court decision denying her legal costs from child care proceedings involving her newborn daughter.
Mr Justice White ruled on 27 October 2017 that the District Court judge had applied the governing principles and acted within his jurisdiction and discretion. The High Court found no basis to quash the costs decision by judicial review. It said R.T. could have appealed the refusal.
R.T., a British national who had arrived in Ireland in January 2016, was 38 weeks pregnant. The judgment says UK social services had alerted Irish social services, and the Child and Family Agency (CFA) became involved after a hospital notified it of her presence. A hospital strategy meeting on 28 January agreed to seek an emergency care order after the child’s birth.
The child, P.T., was born on 7 February 2016. The District Court granted an emergency care order the next day, finding on an ex parte basis that an immediate and serious risk to the child’s health or welfare required her placement in care. On 15 February, it made an interim care order after finding the statutory threshold had been met.
After R.T. instructed solicitors and counsel, the District Court considered the matter on 14 and 21 March and 4 and 5 April. On 4 April it refused to extend the interim care order, finding that the CFA had not met the required threshold. The next day, it refused R.T.’s application for costs.
R.T. sought to have that costs decision quashed, arguing among other things that the outcome was clear and compelling and that leaving her to pay legal fees would cause particular injustice. The High Court recounted the District Court judge’s stated reasons: he did not consider the CFA capricious in bringing the case, did not regard the outcome as particularly clear or compelling, and said there had been no submissions on R.T.’s financial circumstances.
The High Court distinguished an unlawful decision, which may be challenged by judicial review, from a decision alleged to be incorrect, which may be addressed by appeal. It concluded that the District Court had applied the principles in *Child and Family Agency v O.A.* and that there was no evidence its discretion had been exercised in a way permitting judicial review. The application was refused.