The High Court has refused an application by a mother to quash a Circuit Court decision on costs arising from childcare proceedings. Mr Justice Noonan ruled that the judicial review did not establish that the Circuit Court decision was unlawful or irrational.
The underlying District Court proceedings concerned interim care orders relating to the applicant’s children between 4 March 2014 and 8 October 2015. The District Court made three costs orders in her favour. The Child and Family Agency (CFA) appealed, and the Circuit Court set those orders aside, awarding her costs for the first hearing only.
The High Court judgment considered the Supreme Court’s guidance in *Child and Family Agency v O.A.* [2015] IESC 52. That guidance set a default position of no costs for parents in District Court care proceedings, while allowing exceptions in truly exceptional cases. A District Court departing from the default must give reasons. The Supreme Court also said Circuit Court judges should be slow to interfere with a District Court costs decision, particularly where they had not heard the full case.
The District Court judge had cited the proceedings’ length, the number of fathers involved and other features as reasons for awarding costs. On the CFA’s appeal, the Circuit Court judge found those reasons did not meet the criteria in *O.A.* She nevertheless awarded costs for the first hearing, referring to the applicant’s unfamiliarity with the process and her circumstances, including mental health issues, a background of domestic violence and staying in a women’s refuge.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that the District Court judge had heard extensive oral evidence, unlike the Circuit Court, and that the Circuit Court should have been slow to interfere. She also argued that awarding costs for only the first hearing was irrational if the Circuit Court had found no exceptional features. The CFA submitted that the application was an attempt to appeal the merits rather than identify an error of law.
Mr Justice Noonan said judicial review examines the lawfulness of a decision, not whether it was correct. The Circuit Court had heard a full appeal on the costs issue, and the Supreme Court’s guidance did not prevent it from interfering where it considered the District Court had departed from the stated principles. The High Court judge said he could not revisit whether that conclusion was correct; he found no error of law or irrationality in the Circuit Court’s decision to award some costs but not others.
The court refused the judicial review application. It did not alter the Circuit Court’s costs order.