The High Court refused a self-represented man’s application for judicial review of a Circuit Court divorce decree and related orders, including arrangements for the family home, maintenance, custody and access. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 26 July 2018, concluded that the custody and access terms had been accepted and that the applicant’s later conduct precluded relief.
The applicant sought to quash the order made on 9 March 2017, which granted a divorce to him and his former spouse and made orders for their child, the family home and other matters. He argued that the Circuit Court hearing was unfair, that a draft agreement from mediation had improperly been admitted, that parts of the order were wrongly recorded as being made by consent, and that the judge had misapplied family law legislation.
The High Court reviewed the hearing transcript. It found that the Circuit Court judge gave the applicant opportunities to put forward his views on the live issues and explain the proposed orders. On custody and access, the applicant participated in shaping the arrangements, had time to consider them, and indicated that the proposals were reasonable and that he was happy to move on. The High Court found his acceptance was informed and concluded that complaints about cross-examination and fair procedures did not arise in relation to those agreed terms.
On the family home, the Circuit Court order transferred the applicant’s interest to the other party, required her to pay the mortgage and indemnify him against arrears or negative equity, and provided for sale if the lender foreclosed or payments fell into arrears for six months. The High Court said the judge had explained the financial consequences and was entitled to decide the proper provision on the financial material before him. It found no error in how the hearing was conducted.
The High Court also rejected the challenge concerning the draft mediation agreement, finding no evidence that the Circuit Court judge relied on it. It noted that the order incorrectly recited that oral evidence had been received from the applicant, but refused leave to challenge the order on that basis. The judge said an application to correct that aspect might be made under the slip rule.
The applicant had later applied by consent for a pension adjustment order under the divorce order while seeking to challenge it. The High Court held that this conduct amounted to approval of the order and precluded him from obtaining relief. It refused the application for judicial review; it did not quash the divorce decree or the challenged ancillary orders.