The High Court quashed a District Court decision refusing a mother her costs in childcare proceedings after finding that the District Judge had taken her unsuccessful legal aid application into account. The costs issue was remitted to the District Court for fresh consideration; the High Court did not decide whether she should receive costs.
The proceedings began after the Child and Family Agency (CFA) applied for a care order concerning the applicant’s newborn child. The CFA’s stated grounds included concerns about homelessness and allegations of physical and sexual abuse involving the applicant and members of her extended family. Those allegations were grounds advanced in support of the application, not findings made in this judicial review judgment.
The interim care application was adjourned. On 19 April 2016, the CFA withdrew it, and the applicant consented to a supervision order; a safety plan was also agreed. The District Court later refused her application for costs. In its ruling, the District Judge noted that the applicant’s solicitor had been unable to obtain legal aid because the monthly quota had been exceeded, and said she could not visit that failure on the CFA.
The applicant sought judicial review of the costs decision. She argued, among other things, that the case had exceptional features and that the CFA had acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings. The CFA disputed those claims and argued that complaints about the merits of the District Court’s decision belonged in an appeal to the Circuit Court.
The High Court agreed that arguments about the merits were more properly matters for an appeal. It also rejected the applicant’s argument that the usual civil rule that costs follow the event governed childcare costs decisions. It did not determine whether the District Court had been right on the merits to refuse costs.
The court allowed the challenge on the legal aid issue. Citing an earlier Supreme Court decision, it said a parent’s eligibility for legal aid had no bearing on their entitlement to apply for costs. The District Judge had referred to the failed legal aid application, and the High Court said the record did not show how much that consideration influenced the result. That uncertainty affected the lawfulness of the decision.
The High Court therefore made an order of certiorari quashing the District Court’s costs ruling and remitted the issue for fresh consideration. It said it was neither necessary nor appropriate to decide the applicant’s wider argument about whether refusing costs amounted to a failure to secure the administration of justice.