The High Court has ordered Clare County Council to pay limited costs to John and Caroline Sherlock after finding that the Council’s offer of alternative accommodation shortly before a judicial review hearing was a unilateral action that made the proceedings moot.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the offer put the applicants in as good a position as they would have been if they had won the case. The court ordered the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings on the basis that the hearing would have lasted two days, with fees limited to one counsel. The applicants cannot recover costs for preparing the statement of grounds or written legal submissions, or for motions concerning cross-examination.
The proceedings challenged the Council’s failure to carry out a fresh assessment of the family’s housing needs. The Sherlocks, a Traveller family, had lived since December 2014 in Council-provided accommodation at Carrowgar, Lahinch. They said it was insufficient for their needs and alleged that it had fallen into disrepair, was damp and had a rodent infestation. They relied on housing legislation, including the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998.
The Council’s position was that a proper assessment had been carried out when the family was given its tenancy and no further assessment was required. It said the dwelling had five bedrooms and that it was willing to consider an extension. The family had grown after twins were born in January 2017.
A hearing was scheduled for six days from 8 October 2019. After a housing assessment in early October, the Council wrote on 4 October that a five-bedroom property in North Clare might be suitable and could become available for allocation in the coming weeks, subject to refurbishment and a transfer application. The Council maintained that the request arose in the ordinary course of its housing work and was not made to satisfy the proceedings.
The court concluded that the timing, about a month before the hearing, and the absence of affidavit evidence explaining the Council’s actions supported the inference that it had addressed the complaints raised in the judicial review. The court did not decide the underlying housing dispute or direct the Council to provide a particular home. The parties had agreed the proceedings could be struck out, but had not agreed costs.
In setting the limit, the judge criticised the applicants’ pre-litigation letter and pleadings for obscuring the relief sought, and said the written submissions did not clearly identify the issues. He also found that six hearing days were unnecessary and that the case did not require cross-examination or both senior and junior counsel.