The High Court granted the Child and Family Agency a full special care order under section 23H of the Child Care Act 1991, together with related directions and review dates, in a case concerning a child. The judgment describes a full order as lasting three months. It also clarified that, after the first formal originating notice of motion, later applications concerning the same child should generally be made by notice of motion in the existing proceedings.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 27 December 2019. The Agency had first obtained an interim special care order ex parte on 20 December. An interim order on notice followed on 23 December. The Agency then served the first respondent with an unfiled motion seeking a full order; it was formally filed the next day in the existing proceedings and listed for 27 December.
The judge considered whether that later motion had properly been headed “originating”. Order 65A rule 3(9) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides that subsequent applications concerning the child who is the subject of an originating notice of motion are to be brought by motion in those proceedings, on notice to the other parties. The judge said the system envisages one originating notice of motion for the care of a particular child. Later applications, including an application for a full special care order, should be made by a notice of motion in the same proceedings.
The judgment distinguished the first formal notice filed after an ex parte application. Although it uses the same record number, the judge said that first filed notice may properly be called an originating notice of motion because the ex parte docket is lodged with the registrar rather than filed in the Central Office. The judge suggested the Rules Committee consider using “ex parte docket” instead of “motion ex parte” to make the distinction clearer.
The court allowed the Agency to amend the current motion by deleting “originating” and dispensed with formal service of the amended paper. It deemed service on the first respondent good, although the document served was an unfiled version with a blank record number; the filed version was otherwise identical. The court also corrected a typo in the perfected order of 23 December, changing its reference to a motion of 20 November to 20 December.
The court ordered that reporting be restricted so as not to identify non-professional persons involved in the proceedings. It directed that the guardian ad litem’s appointment continue for the duration of the special care order and reserved costs. The judgment does not disclose the child’s circumstances or the substantive reasons for the order.