The High Court dismissed a man’s application for leave to challenge family law decisions by judicial review, finding that his complaints largely concerned the merits of Circuit Court orders and that the challenges were out of time.
In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2016, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicant sought to quash orders made on 14 July and 17 December 2015, along with declarations challenging the orders and aspects of family law legislation. The proceedings arose from a judicial separation case begun about ten years earlier in County Meath, in which Circuit Court orders had provided for the sale of the family home and lands.
The judge said judicial review generally addresses the legality of decisions rather than their merits. He also found that the broad constitutional and European Convention on Human Rights claims lacked arguable grounds and were not properly ancillary to a recent order.
The applicant had argued that the Circuit Court repeatedly adjourned his application to reduce maintenance payments after his financial circumstances changed. But after the State and his wife, S.D., were put on notice, further information emerged. An affidavit apparently sworn around December 2010 said he had not pursued a variation application because he wanted to challenge the legislation. The applicant also agreed that he had consented to an adjournment on 27 March 2012 and had taken no active steps to progress the application until December 2015.
The challenge to the 14 July 2015 order was filed too late, the judge ruled, and the applicant had already appealed that order to the High Court. As to the 17 December order, time ran from when it was made, not when it was later perfected. The application, filed on 4 April 2016, was therefore out of time, and no basis to extend time had been established. The judge also said the applicant had not appealed that order and that the complaints addressed the decision’s merits rather than an arguable legal defect.
S.D. had asked the court to make an Isaac Wunder order restricting the applicant’s ability to bring proceedings. The judge declined, saying there was not enough information about all the proceedings and their outcomes. He said S.D. could apply again later with the required details.
The court made permanent an order under section 45 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, struck Judge Leonie Reynolds from the proceedings, changed S.D.’s status from notice party to respondent, and dismissed the application. The ruling concerned whether leave for judicial review should be granted; it did not determine the underlying family law dispute.