The District Court awarded the second-named respondent his reasonable legal costs in child care proceedings, after finding that his late identification as the child’s biological father and his participation in the case made it an unusual situation.
The costs order followed proceedings under the Child Care Act 1991 in which the HSE obtained a Care Order for the child. The father agreed with that order and took part in the case, seeking to ensure that any directions reflected his role and the child’s best interests. The court noted that he was not technically successful in the proceedings, since the order sought by the HSE was made.
The judgment says an interim care order had been extended 17 times before the second-named respondent was identified as the biological father. He had initially been told he was not the father. DNA testing arranged by the HSE later confirmed his paternity, and he was informed of the care proceedings. He sought advice through a charity with which he had longstanding contact and was represented by legal advisers known to the organisation. The original hearing dates were vacated to allow him to participate, and the case took two days at hearing.
The HSE opposed his application for costs, arguing that it had obtained the Care Order and that costs should not be awarded to a respondent who was not technically successful. It also argued that a costs award should not create a general category of parent entitled to costs merely for purposeful participation. The father’s counsel submitted that his participation was necessary to represent his interests and that the usual “costs follow the event” approach did not determine the issue.
The court said District Court Rules give it discretion over costs and that it had to exercise that discretion on the particular facts. It found the father had serious social disadvantages and had learned of his paternity and the proceedings late, through no fault of the HSE. It also accepted that his participation was necessary and proportionate to the child-care process, and that it was reasonable for him to stay with trusted legal advisers rather than seek civil legal aid.
The court ordered the HSE to pay his reasonable costs, to be taxed if the parties could not agree. At the HSE’s request, it granted a two-week stay so the service could consider whether to appeal. The judgment does not state whether an appeal was brought.