The High Court has refused a man’s application to overturn Dublin City Council’s refusal to let him succeed to the tenancy of the three-bedroom home where he had lived for much of his life. It also refused his challenge to the council’s decision not to arrange an independent review of the proportionality of that refusal.
The judgment, delivered by O’Neill J. on 9 May 2014, concerned a house at 21 Ennis Grove, Irishtown, Dublin 4. The applicant had lived there as a child from 1956, returned in 1991 and was listed on the rent account. His sister, Cassandra Lattimore, held the tenancy from 1990 until her death in 2012. The applicant said he had managed the household and rent payments, and submitted medical evidence that moving would seriously affect his health.
The council refused his succession application, saying the three-bedroom house was not appropriate for a single person, and offered him a one-bedroom flat nearby. It said its allocation decisions had to account for other applicants: the court heard that more than 1,400 people were seeking housing in the area, including 134 seeking three-bedroom accommodation. The applicant argued that the decision failed to account adequately for his circumstances and that Article 8 required an independent body to assess whether making him leave was proportionate.
The judge held that Ennis Grove had been the applicant’s “home” for the purposes of Article 8, and that refusing him the tenancy interfered with his rights, despite the offer of alternative accommodation. The court also held that a housing authority could not itself serve as the independent tribunal required to assess proportionality in these circumstances.
However, the judge said that, because no other independent tribunal had jurisdiction, the High Court could carry out that assessment in the judicial review proceedings. Having reviewed the material before the council officer, including the applicant’s submissions and GP letter, the judge found that the council had considered the relevant circumstances and that its decision was not disproportionate. The nearby one-bedroom offer, the applicant’s need for suitable housing and the housing needs of families seeking three-bedroom homes informed that conclusion.
The court therefore found no breach of Article 8 on the grounds raised and no breach of the constitutional protection of the dwelling under Article 40.5. It did not quash either challenged decision or order an independent review. The requested judicial review relief was refused.