B.L. v Governor of Castlerea Prison; C.L. v B.L. (No.3)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 813
• Date: 21 December 2017
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 951 SS] [2009 No. 48 CAF]

[2017] IEHC 813

THE HIGH COURT

Humphreys J.

[2017 No. 951 SS]

[2009 No. 48 CAF]

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.4.2�o OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND

BETWEEN

B.L.

APPLICANT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF CASTLEREA PRISON

RESPONDENT

AND

BETWEEN

C.L.

APPLICANT

AND

B.L.

RESPONDENT

(No. 3)

Constitution - Art. 40.4.2 of the Constitution - Costs - Departure from normal rule - Isaac Wunder order

Facts: The second applicant/wife to the second proceedings sought an order for costs in relation to family law proceedings along with Isaac Wunder against the first applicant/husband to the first proceedings. The State respondent, too, sought an order for the costs. The husband claimed to have paid the arrears of maintenance and thus, sought an adjournment.

Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys measured the costs for the State respondent and had directed that the husband should pay the relevant amount within seven days of the perfection of the order. The Court made an Isaac Wunder order against the husband for restraining him from bringing any application or proceedings in any manner before the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court without obtaining leave from the Presidents of those Courts respectively. The Court also awarded the costs of the family law proceedings to the wife. The Court further directed that before making any leave application to any Court, that Court should be furnished with the copy of the judgment of the present Court in the case of B.L. v Governor of Castlerea Prison (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 737 and [2017] 11 JIC 2105 that had set out the history of the present case. The Court took into consideration the conduct of the husband in evading the payment of arrears of maintenance and initiating an array of frivolous litigation.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 21st day of December, 2017

1 In B.L. v. Governor of Castlerea Prison (No. 1) [2017] IEHC 569, Binchy J. refused to order the release of the applicant under Article 40.4 in relation to his imprisonment for contempt arising from breach of a Circuit Court order for payment of maintenance in family law proceedings. In B.L. v. Governor of Castlerea Prison (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 737 [2017] 11 JIC 2105 I declined to order release in a subsequent Article 40 relating to the same detention. I am now dealing with measuring the costs of the No. 2 proceedings, and with a motion brought by his wife Ms. C.L. seeking an Isaac Wunder order and orders in relation to costs of the family law proceedings, which are discussed at some length in the No. 2 judgment. I have heard from Mr. B.L. in person, from Mr. Remy Farrell S.C. (with Mr. John Gallagher B.L.) for the State respondents to the Article 40 application, and Ms. Eileen O'Leary S.C. for Ms. C.L.

Adjournment application

2 At the outset of the application Mr. B.L. applied for an adjournment, stating that he had ' a lot on', that he had been in Castlerea Prison, that this was a long running case and that he claimed that the arrears in maintenance involved had been paid. He had in fact been released from Castlerea Prison since the 30th November, 2017, although he did not volunteer that information. Ms. O'Leary submitted that the adjournment application ' has to be seen for what it is, a further part of his protracted campaign to frustrate the legal process'. I entirely agree. It seems to me that the adjournment application is very much a part of the applicant's campaign of disruption of the legal process overall. He failed to give any notice whatsoever to the other parties of his intention to seek an adjournment. Rather than even phoning in advance he simply turned up and applied on the day, and as Ms. O'Leary put it, the objective seems to be to ' put all lawyers to the maximum amount of inconvenience' by giving ' no notice to anybody'. While Mr. L's adjournment application is ostensibly related to his difficulties from not having legal representatives, there is a complete lack of any evidence of any actual effort to get legal representatives - simply a bare assertion that he cannot properly deal with...