 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
High Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Robinson -v- Dublin City Council & ors [2012] IEHC 605 (24 October 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2012/H605.html Cite as: [2012] IEHC 605 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Judgment Title: Robinson -v- Dublin City Council & ors Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 605 High Court Record Number: 2009 540 JR Date of Delivery: 24/10/2012 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: Hedigan J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation [2012] IEHC 605 THE HIGH COURT [2009 No. 540 J.R.] BETWEEN JASON ROBINSON APPLICANT AND
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDENTS Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 24th day of October, 2012. 1. In these proceedings the applicant seeks judicial review by way of certiorari and certain declarations of a decision communicated to him on the 5th January, 2009 refusing his appeal against the decision of the Housing Authority refusing his application for succession to a tenancy at 35F, St. Michan’s House, Greek Street, Dublin, 7. 2. The proceedings arise from the following facts which are largely undisputed. At some stage after the death of his father, the applicant moved out of his parents’ home and into the house of his grandmother. She had resided there as a tenant of the Housing Authority since 1964. He lived there according to his application to succeed to the tenancy since 2005. At that time he was registered on the rent book as living with his grandmother. In her later years, his grandmother suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and he acted as her carer. On the 22nd June, 2008 his grandmother died. 3. Early in July the applicant applied to the Housing Authority to be allowed to succeed to his grandmother’s tenancy. On the 14th July, 2008 he was refused. He appealed against this refusal but on the 30th July, 2008 was refused. A demand for possession was made at this time but was not complied with. On 17th October, 2008, a notice to quit was served by the Housing Authority. This notice demanded possession be delivered up by 8th December, 2008. Prior to this date, the applicant made further representations to the Housing Authority. These were unsuccessful and he was informed of this on 5th January, 2009. He did not deliver up possession of the premises. 4. The Housing Authority moved to seek a warrant for possession pursuant to s. 62 of the Housing Act 1966. The summons in this respect issued on 21st January, 2009 and was returnable in the District Court on 2nd April, 2009. It was served on 3rd February, 2009. On this date it was adjourned to 4th June, 2009. On the 21st May, 2009 judicial review papers were filed and upon the applicant’s appearance on the 25th May, 2009 leave was granted. 5. The applicant’s essential complaint is that the procedure is not in accordance with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enunciated in the recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Yordanova v. Bulgaria of 24th April, 2012, Bjedov v. Crotia, 29th May, 2012 and Buckland v. United Kingdom, 18th September, 2012. He argues that in these recent cases, the Strasbourg Court has held that where a person proposed to be evicted from his home wishes to raise the proportionality and reasonableness of his eviction, he is entitled to do so even where he has no legal entitlement to remain in the property. 6. It is pleaded by the respondents that the applicant’s delay must disentitle him to the relief he seeks. It is argued that the provisions of Order 84, rule 21 which apply to these proceedings – the new rule applies only to proceedings brought after January 2012 – provide that the application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months or six months where, as here, the relief sought is certiorari. 7. The application was made on the 21st May, 2009. It purported to be of a decision communicated to the applicant on the 5th January, 2009. Even on this reckoning of time, the application is out of the time specified in respect of the declarations sought and four and a half months after the decision in respect of which certiorari is sought. 8. What is the date from which time runs in this case? This question has been dealt with by the courts in a number of cases. In Dublin City Council v. Fennell [2005] 1 IR 604, 638 – 639, delivering the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Kearns J., as he then was, stated:
In these housing cases, it is very important for the reasons which I have indicated that the management of the housing pool be conducted in an orderly and speedy manner by the Council, whose duty . . . is to the general body of people in need of housing and not to any particular individual at least not in this particular context. In order that that can be carried out in an orderly manner, it is essential that the application be brought as speedily as possible. In this case that would have been as quickly as possible after the service of the notice to quit.” Here, clearly, no such compliance with this firmly expressed view of the courts can be found. There is no explanation furnished for his delay other than that the applicant continued until January 2009 to engage with the Housing Authority in relation to the tenancy. Such engagement cannot, in my view, alter the validity and full effect of the notice to quit. Even were this not so, the applicant’s engagement with the Housing Authority ended conclusively on 5th January, 2009. His application for judicial review should have been made by the end of that month if not earlier. 10. In the circumstances, I consider this application to be far outside the time limits wherein it should have been brought and so must refuse the application for the reliefs sought. This preliminary finding being dispositive of the case, I will not address the other issues raised herein.
|