Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses judicial review of the decision of a county council to refuse a homeless mother and son emergency accommodation, on the grounds that the council did not conflate the statutory regimes governing housing, and the council’s decision was not fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense.
Judicial review – substantive hearing - mother and child challenging the decision of the County Council to refuse them emergency accommodation – mother and child are homeless – child has sensory difficulties and behavioural and emotional issues – were living in Dublin – mother in an abusive relationship – protection order – returned home - refused emergency accommodation – mother’s efforts to receive emergency relief resulted in the involvement of the Gardaí - bed and breakfast emergency accommodation in a guesthouse – mother’s housing history required by the council – council required reports regarding the child – refused entry to council’s offices on expiry of emergency accommodation – informed that she would not receive further emergency accommodation - staged a sit-in – mother was arrested and charged – mother now homeless and has been residing in a tent outside the council’s offices - has been on the Carlow “housing list” for approximately seven years – steps taken prior to initiation of proceedings – relevant statutory provisions – duty to give reasons - position taken by the council is in breach of their right to family life under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights - whether the council conflated the two statutory regimes concerning housing – Court did not accept that there was conflation - whether there is a basis for the court to quash the council’s decision to refuse emergency accommodation pursuant to the Act of 1988 - wording of both s. 2 and s. 10 of the Act of 1988 is not mandatory in nature – council has discretion - extent to which a Court could set aside, amend or substitute its own decision for that of the council as regards the provision of emergency accommodation - Court is limited to reviewing as to whether there was a rational basis for the decision - “housing assistance payment” available to her – decision not fundamentally at variance with reason and commonsense – sufficient reasons offered - mother not precluded from making a further application for emergency accommodation pursuant to the Act of 1988 should further circumstances arise – judicial review refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.