Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.

Last updated
Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameChild and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A. 2015
Decided23 June 2015
Citation(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S52.html
Case history
Prior action(s)Appealed by appellant from the District Court to the High Court, then appealed to the Supreme Court before being withdrawn by appellant. Revisited by District Court, then appealed to Circuit Court and stated to the Supreme Court by the Circuit Court.
Appealed fromHigh Court, Circuit Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Related action(s)HSE v OA [2013] 4 JIC 1205
Court membership
Judges sitting Murray J, O'Donnell J, MacMenamin J, Laffoy J, McKechnie J
Case opinions
The Supreme Court case centered on why the District Court gave the appellant Child and Family Agency (CFA) costs. Judge Nolan asked two questions: is it okay or right for the Circuit Court to let the appellant's appeal against an order for costs made against it, after looking at all the facts and finding that the appellant hadn't done anything wrong? MacMenamin J. argued that it was important to find a balance between proper legal procedures and the high levels of skill needed in child law cases to protect the welfare of children and deal with constitutional questions about legal representation. He suggested that parents should not get a cost order in District Court child care cases unless there are specific features to the case in question, such as a decision that the CFA started or kept the proceedings without good reason, arbitrarily, or capriciously. It was also suggested that the Circuit Court should only overturn decisions made by the District Court if there is a deviation from the guidelines and standards outlined in this judgment. The case was sent back to the Circuit Court so that the above principles could be applied.
Decision byMacMenamin J
Keywords

Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, [1] also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

History

The case was first heard in the District Court, but the Health Service Executive (HSE), which was the legal predecessor to the Child and Family Agency (CFA or Tusla), took it to the High Court because it wanted to award costs. The HSE lost in the High Court, so the case went to the Supreme Court. The case was heard again in the District Court, and costs were given. The appeal was dropped. The Circuit Court questioned this order, and Section 16 of the Courts of Justice Act of 1947. [1] [4] It was then sent to the Supreme Court to be decided. [5]

Context of the case

The CFA filed the appeal. The respondent was a mother of four, whose name was referred to in the case as O.A. [6]

In April 2011, the HSE looked into claims that O.A. had physically abused her daughter, A.A., who had moved in with a third party. The HSE asked for an emergency care order, which was granted, and O.A. hired a private solicitor. The HSE had not yet asked for a full care order in November 2011. By that time, the situation at O.A.'s home had "radically changed" because A.A. had returned and dropped all charges. On November 28, the HSE asked for a supervision order, which was eventually granted, despite O.A.'s objections, because the emergency care order had ended. This supervision order ran out on March 5, 2012. But on April 25, 2012, the HSE tried again to get a supervision order, saying that O.A.'s other three children were being left alone at home. This order was also granted. [7]

Application for costs

Still, O.A.'s lawyer asked for costs, saying that O.A. had won several applications. O.A. qualified for legal aid, and the HSE argued that the District Court did not have the capacity to grant costs in this situation. They then went to the High Court. [8] The HSE lost in the High Court, so it went to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the District Court gave an order for costs, but MacMenamin J. said that there was nothing special about the case that made this decision necessary. The HSE took the order to pay costs to the Circuit Court. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court appeal was dropped. The Circuit Court judge, Nolan J., wanted to take back the costs that the District Court had given. He did this by citing a United Kingdom ruling [9] in which costs were not given because the equivalent child care authority had acted suitably. But the judge agreed to state the case to the Supreme Court. [2]

Supreme Court

The case now centered on why the District Court gave the appellant Child and Family Agency (CFA) costs. The appellant and its predecessor had already been in front of courts at every level of the Republic of Ireland's legal system (except the then-new Court of Appeal). MacMenamin J. took note of this "extraordinary" part of the case, as well as the fact that it was unusual for a discretionary question to be considered a legal issue. [7]

Judge Nolan of the Circuit Court asked two questions:

  1. As a judge of the Circuit Court, is it okay or right for me on appeal from the District Court, to let the appellant's appeal against an order for costs made against it, after looking at all the facts and finding that the appellant hadn't done anything wrong or acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious way in proceedings brought under part (iv) of the Child Care Act, 1991?
  2. In response to an appeal made by the Child and Family Agencythe District Court's decision to give costs to the respondent, can I use the reasoning in Re T (Children) (Care Proceedings; Costs) [10] to decide that costs should not be granted against the appellant?

MacMenamin J. said the lawyer's claim that the cases were "successful" from O.A.'s perspective did not make sense. He asked if there was ever a time when it would be fair to give costs to a party whose case was largely unsuccessful. He also thought that the way the District and Circuit Courts did things was too "general" or "rigid" for the situation. Last, he talked about how important the topic was once more. He said that it was important to find a balance between proper legal procedures and thehigh levels of skill" needed in child law cases to protect the welfare of children and deal with Constitutional questions about legal representation.

Holding of the Supreme Court.

MacMenamin J. thought that the commencement should be that parents shouldn't get a cost order in District Court child care cases unless there are specific features to the case in question. [2] [7] [5] For example:

(i) A decision that the CFA started or kept the proceedings without good reason, arbitrarily, or capriciously;

(ii) Where the case's outcome was very clear and transparent

(iii) where, given the duration and complexity of the procedures, leaving the parental figures or external parties to bear the costs would be unfair;

(iv) Any time a District Court wants to go against the general rule and award costs, it has to explain why. These reasons must point to a clear part or issue of the case that made it truly special. All cases are different, however not every instance is extraordinary.. The difference that makes a costs order justified has to do with whether or not there was an unusual or never-before-seen issue or issues that needed to be decided or whether the case was properly decided and within its scope of jurisdiction determined a point that applied to many different types of cases.

MacMenamin J. said, in response to the Circuit Court's first question, that the Circuit Court should only overturn decisions made by the District Court if there is a deviation from the guidelines and standards outlined in this judgment. [7] [5]

The case was sent back to the Circuit Court so that the above principles could be applied.

Subsequent developments

The Supreme Court's decision was final and changed how courts would decide costs in the future when it came to the Child and Family Agency. This case had an effect on how many other cases were decided. [11] [12] [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Engineering Design and Management v. Burton</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>H v H</i> Irish Supreme Court case

H v H, [2015] IESC 85, also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted.

<i>OConnell & anor v The Turf Club</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Connell & anor v The Turf Club, [2015] IESC 57, [2017] 2 IR 43 is an Irish Supreme Court case which explored the scope of judicial review in Ireland. It addressed whether the decisions of a sport's organizing body should be amenable to judicial review. In deciding that it was, this decision became a useful reminder that it is not only bodies created by statute, which are generally considered to be subject to public law, that are amenable to Judicial Review by the Courts.

<i>Child and Family Agency v RD</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v RD [2014] IESC 47 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that jurisdiction of EU states which first issue orders have primacy but that the High Court in Ireland has the right under EU law to grant provisional protection orders to allow a child to stay in Ireland. The case clarified the jurisdiction of Irish courts under Article 20 of the European Union's Council Regulation No 2201/2003 on parental responsibility.

<i>J. McD v P.L and B.M</i> Irish Supreme Court case

J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological donor, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<i>Bank of Ireland v ODonnell & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.

<i>Goold v Collins and Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Goold v Collins and Ors [2004] IESC 38, [2004] 7 JIC 1201 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a statutory provision's constitutionality may be reviewed only at the behest of a litigant who is contesting some current application of that provision.

<i>Child and Family Agency v McG and JC</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Child and Family Agency v McG and JC [2017] IESC 9, [2017] 1 IR 1 was a case in which the Irish supreme Court ruled that where a detention was lacking in due process of law due to breach of fundamental requirements of justice, it may be challenged through an application for release under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus even in the case of disputes as to the custody of children.

<i>Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

<i>Wansboro v. DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Wansboro v. DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

<i>Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Walsh v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2017] IESC 38, is a decision of the Irish Supreme Court in which the court held that a purchaser bears the risk of reliance on erroneous information unless the vendor has clearly assumed responsibility for its accuracy. In reaching this decision, the court clarified the law in Ireland "in relation to the effect of statements disclaiming liability in actions claiming negligent misstatement."

<i>Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775, is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges. The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>K. (C.) v. K.</i> (J.) Irish Supreme Court case

K. (C.) v. K. (J.)[2004] IESC 21; [2004] 1 IR 224, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the doctrine of estoppel could not be used to change the status of a person, when the status, as a matter of law, never actually changed.

<i>OFarrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison</i> Irish Supreme Court case

O'Farrell and Others v Governor of Portlaoise Prison, [2016] IESC 37, [2016] 3 IR 619 is a reported Irish Supreme Court decision. The Court, split four-three dismissed an appeal from the State over the release of three dissident prisoners. According to Section 9 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995, the Court ruled that it did not have the right to increase the prison sentences of three people who had been sent from England to Ireland to finish their sentences. This case is important as it showed a flaw in the way the Irish prison system carried out prison sentences handed down by courts in other countries. This led to the early release of a number of prisoners.

<i>Child and Family Agency (Formerly Health Service Executive) v OA</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A.[2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is an Irish Supreme Court case which determined the appropriateness of awarding costs in child care cases where there was an unsuccessful parental challenge to an application made by the Child and Family Agency (CFA). The Supreme Court established that there are circumstances where it might be suitable to award costs to unsuccessful parents who privately retained legal counsel; these being if the CFA "acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings", if "the outcome was particularly clear or compelling", or if it would be "particularly unjust towards the parents to award costs against them". It was stated that the District Court must outline its reasoning regarding a decision to award costs in such cases, holding that the Circuit Court should only reverse District Court decisions if the outlined principles and criteria are not followed.

References

  1. 1 2 Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) -v- O.A. [2015] IESC 52, 23 June 2015, retrieved 2023-02-17
  2. 1 2 3 Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v OA [2015] IESC 52 (Digest) - via JustisOne.
  3. ↑ [2018] Irish Journal of Family Law, 21(3), pp.79-80 - via Westlaw IE.
  4. ↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 2023-02-16.
  5. 1 2 3 (2015) "Law Judgments: Key cases in brief" [online]. The Irish Times, 6 July 2015.
  6. ↑ Child and Family Agency v OA [2015] IESC 52 (Case Overview) - via LexisNexis.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) -v- O.A. [2015] IESC 52, 23 June 2015, retrieved 2023-02-17
  8. ↑ J.G & ors -v- Child & Family Agency [2015] IEHC 172, 11 March 2015, retrieved 2023-02-16
  9. ↑ T (Children), Re [2012] UKSC 36, 25 July 2012, retrieved 2023-02-16
  10. ↑ "Re T (Children) (Costs)". vLex. Retrieved 2023-02-16.
  11. ↑ Corbett, M. 2017, Irish Journal of Family Law, 20(1), pp.7-14 - via Westlaw IE.
  12. ↑ L.G. -v- Child and Family Agency [2017] IEHC 633
  13. ↑ AMC -v- The Child and Family Agency [2017] IEHC 61
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.