The High Court awarded the applicants their costs after South Dublin County Council’s response to judicial review proceedings made their caravan loan case moot. The court did not decide whether the council’s original refusal was lawful or whether the applicants would have succeeded in a full judicial review.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar’s judgment, delivered on 8 March 2019, dealt only with costs. The applicants were John Stokes, Tammy Stokes and their three minor children, represented by their mother and next friend. The respondents were South Dublin County Council and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government. Ireland, the Attorney General and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission were notice parties.
The family had applied to the council for a loan to buy a caravan for their allocated bay at the Oldcastle Park Green halting site. According to the background set out in the judgment, the council approved a loan of €10,750 in principle, repayable over five years, and later agreed to extend the repayment period to seven years. The family completed financial forms, and a credit check was requested in January 2018.
The council’s Head of Finance then advised that repayments could not be deducted through the Household Budget Scheme because of social protection legislation. On 12 February 2018, the council told the applicants it was not in a position to process caravan loans, citing a lack of mechanisms to administer them and recover the money. The judgment records the council’s submission that its Finance Department was working to put the necessary administrative arrangements in place. It also notes that the council’s correspondence had not made the scheme’s status clear to the applicants.
The applicants sought leave to bring judicial review proceedings, including orders challenging the council’s refusal and requiring it to process the loan. Leave was granted on 30 April 2018. On 4 May, the council’s solicitor wrote that the loan would be made available within four weeks of 8 May, provided the applicants completed the necessary documents and agreements.
Justice Eagar held that the council’s response to the proceedings was the event that ultimately made them moot. Applying the principles for costs in moot cases, the court awarded the applicants the costs of the ex parte application for leave to seek judicial review. The judgment does not record a final ruling on the loan’s payment or determine the merits of the legal challenges.