A v B
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Max Barrett |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 352 |
| Docket Number | [2020 No. 102 M] |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
In the Matter of the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989 and In the Matter of the Family Law Act 1995, as Amended by the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996
In the Matter of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, as Amended, (And in the Matter of the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 and In the Matter of [Stated Names], Infants
[2021] IEHC 352
[2020 No. 102 M]
[2020 No. 95 M]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 11th May 2021.
This is a successful application for costs made pursuant to O.31, r.29 RSC by the Commissioner as a non-party of whom discovery was sought in the within proceedings. This summary is part of the court's judgment.
_______________________________________
This is an application for costs made by the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, following on the court's judgment of 12th February 2021 in the above-entitled proceedings (see [2021] IEHC 96). Subsequent to the judgment of 12th February and following a further hearing on the substantive issues presenting between the parties, reserved judgment was delivered by the court on 6th April which, because of the nature of the matters addressed therein, is not being made public, though a copy has been supplied to the Commissioner. Consequent upon that later judgment, the parties to the above-entitled proceedings have resolved matters between themselves, with the result that the proceedings between them have now become moot. This obviates the necessity of having an order made directing the production to either of the parties of the material that the court had ordered, by order of 15th February (following on its judgment of 12th February), to be provided to it in the first instance. As a consequence of the foregoing, the parties have sought of the court that it vacate all of its orders relating to disclosure and non-party discovery and the court is satisfied so to order. (The court notes that this has the result that there will be no order effective against the Commissioner as regards the production of any documentation/material).
The within application is made by the Commissioner pursuant to O.31, r.29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which provides, amongst other matters, as follows:
“Any person not a party to the cause or matter before the Court who appears to the Court to be likely to have or to have had in his possession custody or power any documents which are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the cause or matter or is or is likely to be in a position to give evidence relevant to any such issue may by leave of the Court upon the application of any party to the said cause or matter be directed by order of the Court to answer such interrogatories or to make discovery of such documents or to permit inspection of such documents. The provisions of this Order shall apply mutatis mutandis as if the said order of the Court had been directed to a party to the said cause or matter provided always that the party seeking such order shall indemnify such person in respect of all costs thereby reasonably incurred by such person”.
Counsel for the Commissioner, in his written submissions, has helpfully summarised the most relevant facts in the following terms, which the court respectfully adopts:
“The...
To continue reading
Request your trial