District judge erred in amending terms of joint guardianship order

Family law - guardianship - applicant seeks an order of certiorari quashing an order of the District Court made on 5th March, 2018, purporting, by way of clarification of a previous order made on 2nd October, 2017, to appoint the respondent to be joint guardian of their son with retrospective effect to the date of his birth - applicant also seeks an order pursuant to O. 84, r. 7(b) of the Rules of the Superior Courts staying the operation of that order and she seeks an order restraining the District Judge from hearing further applications in respect of the child pending the determination of these proceedings - applicant and the respondent never married but had been in a relationship which, according to the applicant, had broken down prior to the birth of their son - applicant, who is an Irish citizen, removed the child from the jurisdiction on 28th August, 2017 and has since married a citizen of the United States and recently has had a child with him - respondent contends that on 20th June, 2017, the applicant obtained a passport for the child without reference to him. He argues that she falsely swore that she was the sole guardian of the child - on 19th September, 2017, the respondent’s solicitor served on the applicant an application for guardianship by registered letter at the applicant’s parents’ address - he was notified on 29th September, 2017 that the registered letter had been signed for in error by the applicant’s mother, and that the applicant no longer resided at that address - he was not provided with a forwarding address - on 2nd October, 2017, the District Judge accepted that the summons had been properly served upon the applicant and proceeded to make orders in respect of guardianship and access - the court also made an order preventing either party from removing the child from the jurisdiction without the prior written consent of the other or pursuant to court order - respondent avers that to protect his position in relation to guardianship of the child, he decided to request the District Court to clarify the order made on 2nd October, 2017 to confirm that he had been the child’s guardian as and from the date of his birth - on 4th April, 2018 the respondent instituted proceedings in Atlanta pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague proceedings”) - respondent stated that she was advised that the fact that the respondent had been appointed a guardian after what she describes as the lawful removal of the child, could not retrospectively make the removal wrongful - ruling in the US that the child was wrongfully removed - child is resident here and parties have access in this jurisdiction - legislative history of guardianship - order of 5th March 2018 was made ultra vires as the District Judge erred in purporting to amend, clarify or speak to the terms of the order of October, 2017, in a manner which went beyond the provisions of s. 6A, and in purporting to alter the rights of the parties in such a potentially fundamental manner without clear advance notice - reasons why applicant in judicial review proceedings must swear the affidavit themselves - leave was granted on the basis of the applicants solicitors affidavit - proceedings are not moot as child has been returned to this jurisdiction - relief granted.