R. McG. v S. McG.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses an application by the Respondent in family law proceedings seeking access to digital audio recordings and transcripts of hearings held on two separate dates before the High Court. The Respondent intends to use these records to pursue a judicial review of the decisions made by the High Court judges at those hearings. The application was made by notice of motion supported by an affidavit, and the Court was tasked with determining whether to grant access to the recordings in light of the relevant procedural rules and jurisdictional principles.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent is entitled to access digital audio recordings and transcripts of High Court hearings under Order 123 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
2. Whether a judicial review may be brought against decisions of the High Court, which is a court of full and original jurisdiction.
3. Whether it is necessary in the interests of justice to grant access to the requested records to enable the Respondent to fairly prosecute a judicial review application.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent requires the digital audio recordings and/or transcripts of two High Court hearings to prepare and fairly prosecute an application for judicial review of the decisions made at those hearings.
• The Respondent asserts an urgent need for access to these records to enable proper legal proceedings.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Applicant's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
The People (D.P.P.) v Quilligan (No. 2) [1989] 1 I.R. 46	The High Court is a court of full original jurisdiction and is not an inferior court subject to judicial review.	The Court relied on this authority to confirm that judicial review cannot lie against decisions of the High Court.
Blackall v Grehan [1995] 3 I.R. 208	Applicants are not entitled to seek judicial review of High Court orders.	Reinforced the principle that judicial review does not apply to High Court decisions.
A.B. v C.D. [2013] IEHC 578	Judicial review cannot lie against an order of the High Court.	Recently cited authority supporting the Court’s conclusion that judicial review is not available for High Court orders.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by outlining the statutory framework governing access to records of court proceedings under Order 123 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which allows parties to make records of proceedings with the Court's permission and provides for access to such records where necessary in the interests of justice. The Respondent sought access to digital audio recordings and transcripts to pursue a judicial review of High Court decisions.

However, the Court emphasized the well-established legal principle that judicial review is not available against decisions of the High Court, which is a court of full and original jurisdiction. This principle was supported by binding Supreme Court authorities cited in the judgment. Because the Respondent's stated purpose for the records was to prosecute a judicial review that is legally impermissible, the application for access was deemed moot.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice to grant access to the requested records. The Court refused the relief sought, relying on the binding precedents and the statutory framework.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Respondent's application to access the digital audio recordings and transcripts of the High Court hearings held on 7 May 2014 and 27 February 2015.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Respondent will not receive access to the requested recordings or transcripts for the purpose of pursuing judicial review of High Court decisions, as such review is not available. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirmed existing principles concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court and the limits of judicial review.