The High Court dismissed Thomas McCormack’s claim against Mayo County Council over his loss of access to a house in Parkview, Charlestown, and belongings left there. The court found the Council acted lawfully and that Mr McCormack had opportunities to remove his possessions before refurbishment work began.
In a judgment delivered on 20 October 2016, Ms Justice Murphy said Mr McCormack had occupied No. 1 Parkview under a caretaker’s agreement, not a tenancy. The agreement required him to give up possession when asked. Before he left for the UK in November 2009 for medical treatment, the Council told him it might need possession of the house during refurbishment and said his belongings would be stored if that happened. He left no contact details for the Council.
The Council entered the house on 12 January 2010 after reports of a possible break-in and concerns about freezing weather. It found a water leak, shut off water and electricity, changed the locks and boarded the house. The judge accepted evidence that a notice asking Mr McCormack to contact the Council was placed on the door, though it may have disappeared before his return.
When Mr McCormack returned later that month, the Council arranged bed-and-breakfast accommodation and offered him a full tenancy at No. 4 Cois Halla, along with help moving his belongings there. He declined. He later gained access to No. 1 Parkview and removed some possessions. The judgment records that a solicitor subsequently wrote that he would accept the Cois Halla tenancy if the Council installed his washing machine and shelving; the Council agreed to those terms, but he did not take up the offer.
The judge was not persuaded by Mr McCormack’s inventory of extensive losses, finding the claimed volume of goods implausible. She also found that he had access to his belongings until the refurbishment contractor took possession in September 2010 and that he could have arranged their removal. The court concluded that any loss resulted from his failure to remove them. The Council later offered him a tenancy at No. 16 Parkview, the refurbished house, and the offer remained open at the hearing.
The judgment noted that established legal remedies such as trespass, contract and negligence could address the alleged wrongs, making a constitutional tort remedy unnecessary on the pleaded facts. However, the judge considered the claim on its evidence rather than excluding it for the way it had been pleaded. The court dismissed the claim; it did not award damages.