The High Court has ordered the Circuit Court to hear a man’s arguments in an appeal over orders made in his absence regarding maintenance payments for his son.
The man, who cannot be identified, brought judicial review proceedings against a 2019 decision of a Circuit Court judge to dismiss his appeal of a February 2018 District Court order to increase his weekly maintenance payments for his son from €60 to €125, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland noted in a judgment.
The District Court order had been made in the man’s absence and he subsequently said he had not been served with notice of the hearing. He also argued before the High Court that he was not made aware of the District Court’s order for more than two months and first had sight of the order when he was arrested in June 2018 for payment enforcement.
Ms Justice Hyland said a reading of the Circuit Court transcript shows the man was “continually interrupted” by the trial judge when seeking to make submissions. She was satisfied the man was not given a chance to make his argument alleging defects in service.
The judge said it is a matter of “fundamental fair procedures” that an appellant ought to have an opportunity to make his or her arguments to the court.
Not permitted
The trial judge had not rejected his entitlement to make an argument as to service “per se”, but he did not permit the man to make any submissions on the matter. Instead, she said, that judge concluded that the District Court had ensured service had been adequate.
Ms Justice Hyland said she was not assessing the merits of the man’s arguments, but whether he could advance them in his appeal.
It had also been argued by the mother that the proceedings had become moot as the boy had turned 18 last year and so the maintenance payment order has been discharged.
The judge noted that the discharge of the order does not forgive the man for the arrears of €11,500 which accumulated between February 2018 and the boy’s 18th birthday.
‘Live controversy’
In those circumstances, the judge said there is a “live controversy” between the parties that these proceedings could resolve, by way of the man’s appeal being heard by the Circuit Court.
It would be wrong to assume all aspects of the issue would be resolved in favour of the respondent, the boy’s mother, such that the father will obtain no benefit from any remittal to the Circuit Court. For this reason, she refused to exercise her discretion not to quash the decision.
She remitted the matter back to the Circuit Court.
