The High Court discharged an order granting leave for judicial review of Circuit Court family law proceedings, finding that the applicant had disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had not brought the challenge promptly or within the applicable six-month period for certiorari.
The judicial review, brought by an anonymised applicant, challenged orders made under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Acts. The applicant argued that the courts lacked jurisdiction over matters arising from a Roman Catholic marriage and sought to have the Circuit Court orders quashed, to prevent further proceedings, and to obtain declarations and damages.
The motion before Mr Justice Murphy was brought by the anonymised notice party, who sought to discharge the leave granted ex parte on 3 July 2006. Alternatively, she sought to have the proceedings dismissed or to lift or vary the stay on the Circuit Court proceedings. The State opposed the judicial review. The judge said the notice party had not been included in the original application for leave and was subsequently added.
The judgment records that the applicant did not attend the second day of the motion hearing. The court declined to adjourn, noting that the central issues were legal arguments and that the applicant had made submissions on the first day. The hearing addressed in-camera family-law material separately from the legal submissions, which were heard in public.
In considering the challenge, Mr Justice Murphy referred to prior decisions recognising the court’s inherent jurisdiction to review leave granted ex parte. He said that jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, but concluded that this was an appropriate case. He also found that the challenge was brought too late: the first relevant Circuit Court order was made in November 2005, while the judicial review application was moved on 3 July 2006, and no extension of time had been sought.
The judge rejected the argument that the statutory family-law scheme could not apply to a Roman Catholic marriage. He referred to earlier decisions recognising the civil courts’ jurisdiction and the constitutionality of the judicial separation legislation. He said the judicial separation legislation did not dissolve or otherwise affect the bond of marriage.
The court did not find the proceedings frivolous or vexatious, and expressly stopped short of finding that they were doomed to fail. It nevertheless held that the application disclosed no reasonable cause of action and discharged the High Court’s 3 July leave order. The judgment therefore ended the judicial review at the leave stage; it did not determine the underlying Circuit Court family-law matters.