The Court of Appeal has dismissed Roberto Alamazani’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing him leave to bring judicial review proceedings over a District Court possession order for a Dublin City Council home.
The underlying District Court order, made on 15 April 2024, granted the Council possession of a dwellinghouse leased to Alamazani and a decree for €13,663.865 in rent arrears. The order set an execution period from 15 June 2024 to 15 January 2025. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 3 April 2025 and dismissed it.
Alamazani had sought judicial review after the District Court order, arguing, among other things, that the District Court judge should have recused herself because he had complained about her to the Judicial Council. He also alleged that a Council inspection report was misleading and raised fair-procedure concerns. The High Court refused leave on 25 November 2024, finding no evidential basis for the bias claim and concluding that he had not shown an arguable case. It also noted that he had not appealed the District Court order to the Circuit Court.
The appeal focused on procedure. Alamazani argued that the High Court had wrongly required him to serve notice and supporting papers on the respondent and the Council before granting leave. The Court of Appeal said the notice direction had been made earlier by a different High Court judge and had not been appealed. It also held that Order 84, rule 24(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts allows a court to direct that a leave application be heard on notice.
He also argued that the High Court judge had not heard his leave application on 12 November 2024 before refusing it later that month. The appeal court listened to the digital audio recording of that hearing. It found that Alamazani had moved his application, made submissions, and had an opportunity to reply to the respondent’s submissions. The judge then adjourned to decide his request for an adjournment to seek legal aid and, if that request was refused, to decide the leave application.
The Court of Appeal found that both procedural grounds failed. It added that Alamazani had not challenged the substance of the High Court’s conclusions on appeal. The court said he had not exhausted the alternative remedy of appealing the possession order to the Circuit Court and had shown no reason why that route was inadequate. It dismissed the appeal and rejected claims that his constitutional rights or right to fair procedures had been violated.