The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to family law orders made in the District Court, finding no breach of the applicant’s rights in the handling of maintenance and access issues.
The case concerned orders made on 26 October 2012 by Judge Hugh O’Donnell. The applicant, identified in the judgment as L.C., argued that the orders were made without sworn testimony despite his wish to give evidence. The notice party, identified as V.T., is described as his former partner and the mother of their two children.
The District Court reduced maintenance from €200 a week to €100 a week, comprising €50 for the children and €50 towards arrears. It also ordered the applicant to transfer his car and its documents to the notice party so it could be sold against maintenance arrears. The car had been valued at €5,000 earlier that year. The court declined to change the existing access arrangement and did not hear the applicant’s summons alleging breaches of that arrangement.
At the time, maintenance arrears stood at €12,040. The applicant’s solicitor told the District Court that he was receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance of €188 a week and had paid €20,000 to a friend, apparently for living expenses. The judgment records competing accounts of the exchanges at the hearing and of the applicant’s financial circumstances. The applicant said he had been unable to pay; the notice party disputed many of his claims.
In her judgment delivered on 18 June 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said the District Court judge was entitled to take account of his knowledge of the case, including previous proceedings and the applicant’s unsuccessful appeal against an earlier maintenance order. She concluded that the maintenance decision was consistent with the earlier order and found no breach of rights in the judge’s approach.
The judge also said the judicial review was not properly thought through: quashing the District Court order would have left a Circuit Court order requiring €200 weekly maintenance in force. On access, she found the applicant had not explained what evidence he would have given, what change he sought, or how the notice party had breached the access order.
The High Court refused all relief sought. The judgment does not set out a separate order on the car transfer beyond recording that a stay had earlier been granted pending the judicial review.