C v C (Approved) [2020] IEHC 691 (22 December 2020)

C v C (Approved) [2020] IEHC 691 (22 December 2020)

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to vary a barring order issued by the District Court in judicial separation proceedings; such variation must be sought in the District Court. The High Court may regulate access but must stay its order pending variation of the barring order by the District Court.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 691
Parties
Applicant: C; Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Separation / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Application to vary District Court barring order refused; order regulating access made and stayed pending District Court variation.
Legal Topics
Judicial Separation, Barring Orders, Access to Children, Variation of Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Separation / Interlocutory Motion

  1. 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to vary a barring order issued by the District Court in judicial separation proceedings?
  2. 2 Can the High Court regulate access to children where a barring order is in place?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to vary a barring order issued by the District Court in judicial separation proceedings; such variation must be sought in the District Court. The High Court may regulate access but must stay its order pending variation of the barring order by the District Court.

Court Disposition

Application to vary District Court barring order refused; order regulating access made and stayed pending District Court variation.

Orders

  • Order regulating access to children (stayed pending District Court variation of barring order)
  • Refusal to vary District Court barring order