B v The Child & Family Agency (Approved) [2025] IESC 33 (15 July 2025)

B v The Child & Family Agency (Approved) [2025] IESC 33 (15 July 2025)

The GAL should not have been joined as a notice party in the plenary proceedings because B was already a party and his interests were fully represented; therefore, the GAL was not entitled to a full set of costs. However, since the GAL was in fact joined and no appeal was taken against that joinder, she is entitled to one day's costs for the plenary hearing, but no further costs for the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.

Citation
[2025] IESC 33
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: B (A Minor) suing by his mother and next friend, Y; Defendant/respondent: Child and Family Agency; Notice Parties: T, Q, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for Health and Children, Equality and Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General (No.2)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; costs order varied.
Legal Topics
Costs, Joinder of Parties, Guardian Ad Litem, Child Care Proceedings
Child Law Civil Procedure Costs Joinder of Parties Guardian Ad Litem Child Care Proceedings

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B (A Minor) suing by his mother and next friend, Y

Plaintiff/appellant

Child and Family Agency

Defendant/respondent

T, Q, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, the Minister for Health and Children, Equality and Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland and the Attorney General (No.2)

Notice Parties

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guardian ad litem (GAL) is entitled to costs in plenary proceedings against the Child and Family Agency (CFA)
  2. 2 Whether the GAL should have been joined as a notice party in the plenary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The GAL should not have been joined as a notice party in the plenary proceedings because B was already a party and his interests were fully represented; therefore, the GAL was not entitled to a full set of costs. However, since the GAL was in fact joined and no appeal was taken against that joinder, she is entitled to one day's costs for the plenary hearing, but no further costs for the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; costs order varied.

Orders

  • GAL awarded one day's costs in the High Court plenary hearing.
  • No further order for costs in respect of the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.