The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a High Court order extending time for a judicial review and quashing a Circuit Court direction for an expert report on the welfare of the parties’ children. It set aside the High Court order of 8 March 2019 because it was not satisfied that there was good and sufficient reason to extend the time limit.
The judicial review challenged a Dublin Circuit Family Court order made on 23 February 2018. The order appointed Professor Jim Sheehan to prepare a report under section 47 of the Family Law Act 1995, after the Circuit Court heard an appeal concerning an application by the appellant to enforce an earlier High Court access order. The respondent applied for judicial review on 11 June 2018.
The High Court extended the time for bringing the proceedings and quashed the Circuit Court order. The appellant appealed, arguing that the respondent had not adequately explained the delay and that the extension prolonged his separation from the children. The respondent said she had sought advice from her former solicitors about the report but had not received it, and that she applied soon after contacting new solicitors.
In its judgment delivered on 20 December 2019, the Court of Appeal focused on the extension of time. It said the respondent had initially explained the delay by saying she was unaware of the Circuit Court order until she saw it on 1 June 2018. In a later affidavit, she said she knew an order had been made but did not understand the report’s scope or know she could challenge it, and that her former solicitors had not advised her.
The court said the first explanation was inconsistent with evidence that the respondent had objected to a section 47 report at the Circuit Court hearing, that her solicitors had written to Professor Sheehan about the order and fees, and that she had met him in May. It said the High Court had focused on the later explanation without addressing the earlier account and the inconsistencies raised by the appellant.
The Court of Appeal also said the High Court should have considered the broader effect of an extension, including the appellant’s claim that further delay prolonged his estrangement from the children. It concluded that the High Court had not meaningfully engaged with the competing evidence, the respondent’s credibility, or the appellant’s arguments about prejudice and candour.
The court did not decide the remaining grounds of appeal, including issues concerning jurisdiction and costs. It allowed the appeal and vacated the High Court order. The judgment does not state that the Court of Appeal itself quashed the Circuit Court order or determine the underlying access dispute.