L -v- Judge Haughton & Ors [2007] IEHC 316 (27 June 2007)

L -v- Judge Haughton & Ors [2007] IEHC 316 (27 June 2007)

Applicant failed to establish an arguable case for judicial review; District Court orders were made with proper notice and applicant's participation; procedural requirements under s.20 were not mandatory in the circumstances; applicant misconstrued statutory framework; court exercised discretion to refuse leave for judicial review.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 316
Parties
Applicant: MJL; First Respondent: District Court Judge Gerard Haughton Waterford; Second Respondent: District Court Judge William Harnett Kilkenny; Third Respondent: Legal Aid Board (The Law Centre), Kilkenny; First Notice Party: DL; Second Notice Party: Health Services Executive (South)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Guardianship, Custody, Access, Education of Children, Jurisdiction, Procedural Compliance
Family Law Judicial Review Child Welfare Guardianship Custody Access Education of Children Jurisdiction +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MJL

Applicant

District Court Judge Gerard Haughton Waterford

First Respondent

District Court Judge William Harnett Kilkenny

Second Respondent

Legal Aid Board (The Law Centre), Kilkenny

Third Respondent

DL

First Notice Party

Health Services Executive (South)

Second Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Court orders regarding children's schooling were made without jurisdiction due to alleged procedural defects
  2. 2 Whether s.20 certificate under Guardianship of Infants Act 1964-1997 was required and complied with
  3. 3 Whether proper notice and appearance procedures were followed

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish an arguable case for judicial review; District Court orders were made with proper notice and applicant's participation; procedural requirements under s.20 were not mandatory in the circumstances; applicant misconstrued statutory framework; court exercised discretion to refuse leave for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave dismissed
  • No order as to costs