McC. v. Murphy [2001] IESC 30 (23 March 2001)

McC. v. Murphy [2001] IESC 30 (23 March 2001)

The respondent's refusal to vary the maintenance order was a decision within her jurisdiction and, if mistaken, was correctable only by appeal, not judicial review. The requirement for in camera hearings under the 1996 Act applies to these proceedings.

Citation
[2001] IESC 30
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent; Interested Party: D. J.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Maintenance Orders, In Camera Hearings, Jurisdictional Error, Natural Justice
Family Law Judicial Review Variation of Maintenance Orders In Camera Hearings Jurisdictional Error Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

D. J.

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to vary periodic maintenance payments was contrary to law or natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted outside her jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the hearing should have been in public

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's refusal to vary the maintenance order was a decision within her jurisdiction and, if mistaken, was correctable only by appeal, not judicial review. The requirement for in camera hearings under the 1996 Act applies to these proceedings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • affirmed the order of the High Court refusing leave for judicial review