HT v A Health and Social Care Trust & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, recorded as the child's second female parent on the birth certificate, was excluded from the hearing of an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) application brought by a Health and Social Care Trust under Article 63 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. At the hearing on 11 July 2023, the birth certificate was unavailable, and the Trust incorrectly named the second female parent as the father on the application form. Consequently, the District Judge proceeded with only the mother present. The EPO was ultimately refused. The birth certificate was later provided on 14 July 2023, after which the second parent, now identifying as male, fully participated in ongoing proceedings before the Family Care Centre. The child remains in a kinship placement with grandparents, who are the parents of the Appellant.

The Appellant sought an order compelling the District Judge to state a case on whether it was lawful to exclude the Appellant from the hearing. However, the application was lodged 16 days outside the statutory 14-day time limit prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Judicature. The Appellant therefore applied for an extension of time to bring the application under Article 146 of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the District Judge was correct in law to exclude the Appellant from the EPO hearing.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal should grant an extension of time to compel the District Judge to state a case on a point of law under Article 146 of the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court exercised its discretion to decline the extension of time for compelling the District Judge to state a case. It found the explanation for the delay inadequate, noting that the delay was unexplained beyond internal correspondence between solicitors and counsel. The procedural mistake at the EPO hearing—excluding the Appellant due to a misidentification of parental status—was attributable in part to the way the Trust presented the application form and the absence of the birth certificate at the hearing. The hearing was conducted remotely via Sightlink, which the Court later observed was unsuitable for contested family proceedings, and likely contributed to the procedural error. The mistake was corrected shortly after the hearing, with the Appellant fully participating in ongoing proceedings. No substantial prejudice arose from the error as the EPO was refused at the initial hearing. The Court emphasized that the law regarding parental responsibility was clear and uncontroversial, and there was no evidence of systemic error by District Judges in similar cases. The Court also referenced established legal principles regarding extensions of time and waiver of procedural requirements, applying the framework from prior case law to the facts.

Holding and Implications

The Court declined to extend time for the Appellant's application to compel the District Judge to state a case. Consequently, the Appellant's challenge to the exclusion from the EPO hearing was not permitted to proceed in this manner. The direct effect is that the procedural decision by the District Judge stands, and the ongoing family proceedings continue with the Appellant fully participating. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.