The Supreme Court ruled that the amount of a Residential Institutions Redress Board award may be disclosed for use in child maintenance proceedings, provided disclosure does not identify another person or an institution connected with the redress application. It also held that the award must be considered as a financial resource when the court decides whether to make a maintenance order and, if so, its amount.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Finnegan on 28 October 2010, came on a case stated from the Circuit Family Court. That court had asked whether an applicant was entitled to details of the award and whether the award could be taken into account in deciding maintenance. The Supreme Court answered “Yes” to both questions.
The underlying proceedings concerned an unmarried couple with two dependent children. The father had custody of the children, who lived with him, and sought maintenance from the mother. The stated facts said she was not paying maintenance and received monthly payments through the Wards of Court Office in respect of a redress settlement. Her solicitor had declined to provide details, citing the confidentiality provisions of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.
The father submitted that the mother’s financial resources, including the award, were relevant to maintenance. The mother argued that the Act’s confidentiality provisions barred disclosure. These were the parties’ submissions; the Supreme Court’s ruling addressed the legal questions referred to it.
Justice Finnegan held that provisions allowing information and evidence to be given to a body conducting a hearing applied to the Circuit Family Court hearing the maintenance application. He said information about the redress application could be provided to that court, but that the provisions did not permit disclosure of the fact or amount of the award by the Board or the Review Committee.
Separately, the judgment found that the Act’s publication restriction applied to any person, but did not prevent the recipient from disclosing the amount of an award so long as no other person, relevant person or institution was named or could reasonably be identified. The court said the maintenance proceedings would be held in camera and there would be no further disclosure of the application or award amount.
The judgment concluded that the award was income, property or another financial resource for the purposes of the maintenance legislation, and that the court deciding maintenance was required to consider it alongside all the circumstances. The Supreme Court answered the referred questions; the judgment does not state that it made a maintenance order or determine the amount, if any, payable for the children.