The High Court awarded the applicants the costs of their ex parte application for leave to seek judicial review, even though the proceedings had become moot and were struck out. Mr Justice Eagar said Kildare County Council’s readiness to contest the case did not establish that it would have succeeded, and pointed to the family’s difficult circumstances.
The judicial review challenged the council’s refusal on 8 January 2016 to provide emergency homeless accommodation to Linda Gill and her two children. The applicants had sought orders quashing that decision and directing the council to reconsider the accommodation application. The court’s judgment, delivered on 11 January 2017, says those proceedings were resolved amicably; the only issue before the judge was costs.
In her affidavit, Ms Gill described leaving rented accommodation in Kildare Town with her children in October 2015 after her relationship with the younger child’s father ended. She said the family had since been homeless, initially staying temporarily with her father’s partner in County Meath. After repeated unsuccessful efforts to find private rented accommodation, she approached the council for emergency accommodation on 6, 7 and 8 January 2016 and was refused each time. Dublin City Council provided three nights’ emergency accommodation from 8 January, according to her affidavit.
The council opposed the costs application. Its counsel argued that the case had become moot because Ms Gill later obtained private rented accommodation through the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme. The council said HAP had been recommended to her before she sought leave for judicial review. The applicants’ solicitors replied that council intervention had enabled the family to secure accommodation and should have happened before proceedings were issued.
The judgment does not decide the merits of the original challenge to the refusal of emergency accommodation. It records the competing accounts about HAP and says the council had filed seven affidavits and a statement of opposition. The judge noted that the family included two very young children, that Ms Gill had been unable to secure private rental housing, and that her solicitors’ letter seeking reconsideration had not been answered in time. He said the circumstances called for the council to assist, potentially through agencies involved in homelessness, and referred to the constitutional rights of children under Article 42A.
Despite the mootness of the judicial review, the court ordered the council to pay the costs of the ex parte application for leave. The judgment does not grant the substantive relief originally sought or determine whether the council’s refusal was unlawful.