The High Court has refused a judicial review application challenging the rejection of a man’s request to succeed to his grandmother’s Dublin City Council tenancy, ruling that he brought it too late.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 24 October 2012. The application sought to quash a decision communicated on 5 January 2009 and obtain declarations concerning the refusal. The court’s decision was based on delay. It did not address the applicant’s other arguments or determine the merits of his succession request.
The judgment said the applicant had lived with his grandmother, a tenant since 1964, from 2005 and was recorded on her rent book. He cared for her in her later years, when she had Alzheimer’s disease. She died on 22 June 2008.
The applicant applied to succeed to the tenancy in early July 2008. The Housing Authority refused the application on 14 July and rejected his appeal on 30 July. A notice to quit was served on 17 October, requiring the property to be given up by 8 December. Further representations were unsuccessful, with the applicant informed of that outcome on 5 January 2009. He remained in the property.
The authority began possession proceedings under section 62 of the Housing Act 1966. The summons issued on 21 January 2009. The applicant filed judicial review papers on 21 May 2009, and leave was granted on 25 May.
He argued that, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and recent Strasbourg decisions, a person facing eviction from their home should be able to argue that eviction would be unreasonable or disproportionate, even without a legal entitlement to remain. The respondents argued that the application was late under the applicable version of Order 84, rule 21, which required applications to be brought promptly and within the relevant time limit.
The judge said earlier court decisions established that time in housing cases runs from service of the notice to quit, when the parties’ legal rights and obligations are engaged. Applicants should normally seek judicial review within days or weeks. The judgment found no explanation for the delay beyond the applicant’s continued engagement with the Housing Authority. That engagement, the judge held, did not change the effect of the notice; in any event, it ended on 5 January 2009, and the application should have been made by the end of that month at the latest.
The court refused the relief sought because the application was far outside the time limits. As that preliminary finding disposed of the case, the judge did not address the other issues raised.