The Court of Appeal has upheld the setting aside of most of a man’s leave to seek judicial review of orders made in lengthy family law proceedings, while preserving a limited challenge to an order restricting further court proceedings. It directed that the case be listed for a brief supplemental hearing on consequential orders, with costs also to be addressed then.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision to set aside leave granted to G.M. in August 2022 to challenge a Circuit Court hearing held on 23 May that year. The judicial review application followed proceedings between G.M. and I.M. concerning access to their child and maintenance. The Court of Appeal judgment says the Circuit Court proceedings had been listed more than 40 times.
At the May 2022 hearing, the Circuit Court ordered G.M. to pay €3,265 in maintenance arrears and made an ongoing maintenance order requiring him to pay half of specified education, medical and dental costs, as well as two extracurricular activities chosen by I.M. It also ordered him to pay half the legal costs measured in a cost accountant’s report, plus the cost of that report. The Circuit Court made an Isaac Wunder order restricting G.M. from taking further proceedings in the District Court, Circuit Court or any other court without leave.
In seeking judicial review, G.M. alleged that the Circuit Court relied on evidence that was not properly before it, denied him the opportunity to give evidence, and refused cross-examination. The High Court found that his account of the hearing was grossly misleading and set aside the leave order. On appeal, G.M. conceded that his affidavit had incorrectly said there was no evidence before the Circuit Court on maintenance and costs, and that his claim that counsel had sought to cross-examine I.M. was also incorrect.
The Court of Appeal agreed that those misstatements, together with the failure to disclose the lengthy history of the proceedings, justified setting aside leave for most of the proposed judicial review. It rejected the claim that a judge’s comment at the hearing showed G.M. had been barred from giving oral evidence, noting that the transcript did not show he had sought to call other evidence beyond an access supervisor who was unavailable.
However, the appeal court concluded that the inaccuracies were not material to a challenge to the Isaac Wunder order. It varied the High Court order so leave remains for the relief sought in relation to that order, along with related consequential reliefs. The court did not decide whether the Isaac Wunder order was legally correct or finally determine the remaining judicial review claim. It asked the respondent to state at the supplemental hearing whether she wished to support that order. If so, the court will consider whether the remaining matter should be sent back to the High Court and what directions are appropriate. Costs remain outstanding.