Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that guided the court's decision:

• The Child and Family Agency v. S McG [2015] IEHC 733; [2017] 1 I.R. 1: This case underscored the necessity of fair procedures in child care proceedings, emphasizing that procedural fairness to parents is integral to protecting the welfare of children.
• Cunningham v. President of the Circuit Court [2012] 3 I.R. 222: Highlighted that costs should generally not be awarded when proceedings become moot due to factors outside a party's control unless a party's unilateral actions directly caused the mootness.
• Phelan v. South County Dublin County Council [2019] IECA 81: Reinforced that costs may follow the party whose actions directly rendered the proceedings moot.
• Godsil v. Ireland [2015] 4 I.R. 535: Clarified that acts in direct response to proceedings could be considered events that justify awarding costs.
• Benloulou v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IECA 81: Established that actions taken in direct response to legal challenges can constitute events warranting costs.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to determining whether costs should be awarded based on the nature of the settlement and the actions leading to the mootness of the proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the judgment centered on whether the settlement reached between the applicant and the respondent constituted an "event" that should trigger the principle that costs follow the event. The applicant argued that the settlement effectively reset the proceedings, thereby entitling her to recover costs incurred.

However, the court observed that the settlement was a mutual agreement rather than a unilateral action by the respondent that would render the proceedings moot. The judgment emphasized that for costs to follow the event, the event should typically be an act by one party that directly leads to the mootness of the case. In this instance, the agreement did not exhibit characteristics of such an event, thereby negating the applicant's entitlement to costs.

The court also considered the nature of the original Article 40.4.2 application, which seeks an inquiry into the lawfulness of care orders made under child care legislation. The settlement did not involve a determination of the lawfulness of the initial care order, and therefore, the court found no basis to award costs to the applicant based on the settlement.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future applications involving costs in child care proceedings under Article 40.4.2. It clarifies that mutual settlements that render proceedings moot do not automatically result in the awarding of costs to either party. Instead, the courts will scrutinize whether the settlement constitutes an unilateral act that directly caused the mootness.

Legal practitioners should note that agreements between parties will not straightforwardly lead to cost allocations unless they involve actions that can be characterized as events under established precedents. This reinforces the necessity for parties to carefully consider their negotiations and settlements, particularly regarding their potential financial implications.