The High Court has refused an interim order requiring Wicklow County Council to secure or fund accommodation for a mother and her 14-year-old daughter while they pursue a judicial review of the council’s decision that they were not homeless.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 30 May 2017, concerns only the applicants’ request for a mandatory interlocutory injunction. The underlying judicial review has not been decided. The court did not determine whether the council’s assessment was lawful or whether the applicants qualified as homeless under the Housing Act 1988.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as P.T. and A.T.H., were granted leave to seek judicial review on 9 May. They challenge the council’s decision of 4 April, later confirmed in writing, refusing emergency homeless accommodation. Their grounds include alleged errors of law and fact, an inadequate assessment of their circumstances and alleged breaches of constitutional and human rights protections.
The mother said she had no access to a Malaysian retirement fund and that a family business had stopped trading. She said the pair had used savings, stayed in bed and breakfast accommodation, slept in a car and, at times, relied on charities or Garda stations for a place to stay. The council disputed her account, saying she had described access to funds and family support in Malaysia. The judgment records substantial factual disagreement and leaves its resolution to the full judicial review hearing.
Justice Faherty found that the applicants had met the arguable-case threshold for challenging the council’s conclusion that they were not homeless. But the interim order sought would have required the council to spend public resources on accommodation before the substantive case was heard. The judge gave weight to the council’s housing responsibilities, limited resources and competing demands, and noted that even a finding of homelessness would leave the form of assistance under section 10 to the council’s discretion, exercised lawfully.
The judge also considered the applicants’ immediate circumstances, including the child’s situation, and said damages would not be an adequate remedy if they ultimately succeeded. However, she was not satisfied that the balance of justice supported the mandatory order. She noted that the council’s decision did not, on its face, show deliberate disregard of the applicants’ rights or bad faith.
The court directed the parties to agree a timetable for submissions and told counsel to attend before Judge Noonan on 31 May to seek the earliest possible hearing date before the end of July. The judgment does not grant accommodation or decide the judicial review itself.