Appeal based on the merits of Circuit Court decision on costs is not appropriate to judicial review

Applicants seek to quash order of the Circuit Court made on the 9th of March, 2016, whereby that court overturned on appeal an order of the District Court awarding the costs of certain childcare proceedings to the applicant - interim care orders made in the District Court in relation to the applicant's children between March 2014 and October 2015 - during that period matter came before the Court on 15 different occasions - on the vast majority of these occasions, consent orders were made but on other occasions, matters were fully contested - hearings were presided over in various junctures by seven different judges - one judge made three cost orders in favour of the applicant - the respondent brought appeals in the Circuit Court in respect of costs orders and the Circuit Judge allowed the appeals and part and set aside cost orders made in the District Court, substituting instead order awarding the applicant the costs of the first hearing only - the approach to be adopted by the District Court, in dealing with statutory child care proceedings, should normally be predicated on whether, in the first instance, it was proper to commence the proceedings - parents should be awarded costs against the agency if the agency acted capriciously, arbitrarily or unreasonably in commencing or maintaining the proceedings - default position is not to award costs unless there is a clear feature or issue in the case identified which rendered the case truly exceptional - District Judge in this case listed reasons which made the case exceptional - distinction between an appeal on the merits and an application for judicial review - application refused.