L.H. v Child and Family Agency (Approved)

             This judgment addresses the allocation of costs in judicial review proceedings which have become moot.� The proceedings concern the care and custody of two minor children.� The dispute between the parties in relation to costs centres on how the outcome of related District Court proceedings should be analysed for the purpose of the allocation of the costs of the High Court proceedings.

             The legal principles governing the allocation of costs in moot proceedings have been summarised as follows by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v. Revenue Commissioners [2021] IECA 5 (at paragraphs 31 to 34):

�First, where the mootness arises as a result of an event that is entirely independent of the actions of the parties to the proceedings, the fairest outcome will generally be that the parties should bear the costs themselves.� Neither is responsible for the mootness, and neither should have to pay for costs rendered unnecessary by an event for which they bear no responsibility.

             These judicial review proceedings were instituted on 7 July 2021.� The immediate trigger for the judicial review proceedings had been the fallout of an earlier application made to the District Court on 2 July 2021.� On that date, the District Court had refused an application for an emergency care order, pursuant to Section 13 of the Child Care Act 1991, made at the suit of the Child and Family Agency.�

             The District Court also appointed an expert pursuant to Section 27 of the Child Care Act 1991.�� The expert prepared a report in December 2021.� The report found, inter alia , that there had been � parental alienation � by the children�s mother.