Dublin District Court in the Bridewell was unable to hear an application for an interim care order (ICO) due to a scheduling conflict with another substantial case involving overlapping legal representatives and the same guardian ad litem (GAL). The matter was adjourned to the following day for mention to fix a hearing date. The judge stressed that efforts should be made to ensure this did not recur.
The CFA solicitor applied for an ICO and indicated that a social work report had been handed into court. He explained that the matter had been listed for half a day but clashed with another ongoing case in a different courtroom, which was already underway with witnesses being called. That case involved the same GAL and two of the same legal representatives.
The mother was present and legally represented. Her solicitor said she was contesting the application and that it was unlikely to be a short matter. The CFA indicated that three witnesses would be required.
The judge queried how the matter had come to be listed in conflict with another significant case. The registrar confirmed that the other case was already in progress and unlikely to conclude quickly.
When the matter was recalled later in the morning, the CFA solicitor said the case had previously been adjourned and that a placement had now been identified for the child. However, the scheduling conflict remained, as the other case was continuing.
The judge described the situation as very unfortunate and unusual. The judge was profoundly unhappy that such a clash had arisen and not been foreseen. The judge made a point of noting to the court that such scheduling issues are a significant and ongoing problem, and that greater effort by legal representatives – in particular the CFA – must be made to avoid such situations whenever possible.
He said it would not be possible to proceed in those circumstances. While acknowledging the urgency of the case, he noted the practical difficulties in securing hearing time, particularly given the number of witnesses involved. He directed that the matter be listed for mention the following day to fix a hearing date as soon as possible. He also noted the mother’s need for certainty, particularly in arranging childcare, and accepted that the matter required urgent resolution.