The High Court granted B.L. limited leave to pursue a judicial review of an attachment order and warrant issued in family law proceedings, while refusing permission to challenge the underlying judicial separation on religious grounds.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant could add a ground arguing that the order of 18 February 2016 did not specify precisely the conduct alleged to amount to contempt of court. The court also found arguable the existing ground that the Circuit Court Rules on attachment and committal had not been followed. Those were questions for the judicial review proceedings; the judge did not determine whether the order or warrant was unlawful.
The order had directed that B.L. be attached and brought before the court to show why he should not be committed to prison over an alleged failure to obey court orders. The only orders it identified were dated 8 April 2008. The judgment says B.L. was arrested in Grange, Co. Sligo, on 2 March 2016, brought to Portlaoise Garda Station and produced before Judge Johnson. He was granted bail and the matter was adjourned to 5 July.
The dispute followed a maintenance order made against B.L. in 2007 and a decree of judicial separation granted on the application of Ms C.L. in 2008. B.L. objected to the separation proceedings on religious grounds. The High Court said that claim was not legally stateable. It also refused leave to pursue two requested forms of relief concerning the family proceedings and the 2008 order, finding no arguable grounds and noting they appeared to be out of time.
The court ordered that an earlier order under section 45 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 be made permanent. It granted leave on the remaining reliefs and grounds, including the new particularity ground, and directed that Judge Flanagan be removed as respondent and Ms C.L. substituted. B.L. was required to serve an originating notice of motion, amended statement of grounds and grounding affidavit within 14 days of perfection of the order, for a return date of 4 October 2016.
The 18 February order and warrant, along with any conditions attached to B.L.’s bail, were stayed pending final determination of the judicial review. The judgment records a stay and permission to proceed; it does not record a final ruling on the contempt allegation.