C.R v an Bord Uchtála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Date: 01 January 1994
• Docket Number: [1993 No. 125 J.R.]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1993 No. 125 J.R.]

C.R. v. An Bord Uchtála

C.R.

Applicant

and

An Bord Uchtála

Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Re N, a solicitor (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 30th June, 1980).

McDonald v. Dublin Corporation (Unreported, Supreme Court, 23rd July, 1980).

McNamee v. Buncrana U.D.C. [1983] I.R. 213; [1984] I.L.R.M. 77.

The State (Abenglen Properties Ltd.) v. Dublin Corporation [1984] I.R. 381; [1982] I.L.R.M. 590.

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion - Alternative appellate procedure - Whether bar to judicial review - Delegation of statutory functions - Whether failure to consider application on its merits - Adoption Act, 1952 (No. 25), s. 22, sub-ss. 1 and 5 - Adoption Act, 1976 (No. 29), s. 8.

Judicial review.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and set out in full in the judgment of Morris J., post.

The applicant obtained in the High Court (Barron J.) leave to apply by way of judicial review for orders of certiorari to quash the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant the information he sought, mandamus requiring the respondent to carry out its statutory functions and properly determine the applicant's application and a declaration that the applicant was entitled to information touching on and relating to his birth and his natural family.

The application by notice of motion dated the 20th April, 1993, was heard by the High Court (Morris J.) on the 23rd and 24th June, 1993.

Section 22, sub-ss. 1 and 5 of the Adoption Act, 1952, provide as follows:—

"22. (1) An tÁrd-Chláraitheoir tárd-chláraitheoir shall maintain an Adopted Children Register.

• (5) An tÁrd-Chláraitheoir tárd-chláraitheoir shall keep an index to make traceable the connection between each entry and the corresponding entry in the register of births. That index shall not be open to public inspection; and no information from it shall be given to any person except by order of a Court or of the Board."

Section 8 of the Adoption Act, 1976, provides as follows:—

"8. A Court shall not make an order under s. 22, sub-s. 5 of the Principal Act or an order for the discovery, inspection, production or copying of any book, document or record of the Board (or any extracts therefrom), or otherwise in relation to the giving or obtaining of information therefrom, unless it is satisfied that it is in the best interests of any child concerned to do so."

The applicant, who was an adopted person, wished to discover the identity of his natural mother. His solicitors wrote to the respondent stating that the applicant wished to obtain his original birth certificate and asked for guidance as to the procedure for so doing. The respondent replied that neither it nor the Registrar General's office would furnish him with his original birth certificate and that if he wished to trace his natural parents he should contact the adoption society which placed him. In further correspondence the respondent stated that adopted persons have no statutory right of access to birth records and that it was not its practice to furnish such information and that it was not prepared to depart from this practice.

The applicant sought by way of judicial review an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent. It was submitted on his behalf (i) that the respondent had failed to determine his application at all or had done so in an improper manner by applying a blanket policy of refusal to deal with such applications and that it had not had sufficient relevant information before it to justify such a refusal; (ii) that the respondent had improperly delegated its statutory functions to an adoption society; and (iii) that the fact that the applicant had an alternative procedure available to him by way of appeal to the court pursuant to s. 22, sub-s. 5 of the Act of 1952, was not a bar to the court granting an order of certiorari.

Held by Morris J., in granting the order sought and quashing the decision of the respondent, 1, that the determination of the respondent was an invalid one in that it had failed to consider the merits of the applicant's case.

Re N, a solicitor (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 30th June, 1980); McDonald v. Dublin Corporation (Unreported, Supreme Court, 23rd July, 1980) andMcNamee v. Buncrana U.D.C.[1983] I.R. 213 applied.

2. That the...