The Supreme Court has dismissed Christine Quinn’s appeal as moot, concluding that her remaining claim for damages over an alleged breach of European Convention rights could not succeed after she was evicted under a valid warrant for possession.
Quinn, a local authority tenant in Athlone, had challenged the use of section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 in proceedings brought over allegations of anti-social behaviour. In July 2009, she obtained leave in the High Court to seek judicial review, including declarations about the legislation’s compatibility with constitutional and Convention rights. The High Court later refused her application on grounds including delay and acquiescence.
The Supreme Court appeal was heard after Quinn had been evicted. She accepted that some of the relief she had originally sought was no longer available, but argued that her claim for damages meant the appeal was not moot. She was seeking damages from Athlone Town Council alone and no longer pursued relief against Ireland or the Attorney General.
The Supreme Court examined related proceedings brought by the council against the District Court judge. In those proceedings, the council sought an order requiring the judge to determine its application for a warrant for possession. The High Court granted that order in November 2009, and Quinn’s solicitors had confirmed she would not participate in or oppose the application. A warrant was later executed, resulting in her eviction.
Delivering the judgment, Ms Justice Dunne said the eviction had taken place under a valid warrant made following the unopposed mandamus application. In those circumstances, she said, there could be no Convention rights breach arising from the eviction on which Quinn’s damages claim could rest. The appeal was therefore moot.
The court did not decide the questions raised about when time for judicial review should begin to run, or whether participation in District Court proceedings could amount to acquiescence in the loss of Convention rights. Justice Dunne said those issues did not need to be resolved to dispose of the appeal. The court dismissed it.