The High Court has rejected a judicial review brought by Paddy and Bridget Doherty, finding no breach of their statutory, human rights or constitutional rights in South Dublin County Council’s handling of their accommodation needs. The couple had sought an order requiring the council to provide a centrally heated, insulated caravan with indoor plumbing.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 22 January 2007. The Dohertys, members of the Irish Traveller Community, had lived for years at Lynch’s Lane halting site in temporary accommodation. The court described their mobile home as damp and poorly equipped: it had no internal plumbing, and Mrs Doherty used an electrically powered nebuliser for up to 16 hours a day. A community nurse wrote to the council in April 2005 describing Mrs Doherty’s serious chest condition and requesting an indoor toilet, heating and hot running water.
After proceedings began in February 2006, the council offered the couple standard housing, including a two-bedroom ground-floor apartment. It later offered temporary accommodation in an apartment pending the planned redevelopment of Lynch’s Lane. The couple declined, saying they could not adjust to apartment living and relied on the community and support of neighbours at the halting site. They argued that Traveller accommodation laws entitled them to choose a caravan and that the offers of housing amounted to unequal treatment.
The judge held that the housing legislation did not give Travellers an unrestricted right to reject suitable conventional accommodation in every circumstance. Under the statutory definition, a person is homeless where no accommodation is available that they can reasonably occupy. The court found the couple were homeless while living in conditions unsuitable for their health, but that their homelessness ended when the council made a reasonable offer they chose not to accept.
The judgment also found that the council had not failed in its duties under the Housing Acts. Lynch’s Lane was due to be redeveloped to provide permanent accommodation, with a caravan site and day house, within 18 months of the judgment. The judge said immediate provision would be desirable, but the authority’s obligations operated according to its resources and priorities.
The court found no evidence that the respondents had acted out of prejudice against Travellers. It also held that the Equal Status Acts’ discrimination claims belonged within the enforcement process set out in those Acts, rather than being decided at first instance in this judicial review. Considering the human rights arguments, the judge found no basis for requiring the council to provide the specific caravan sought.
The applicants’ requested relief was refused. The court concluded that no infringement of their statutory, human rights or constitutional rights had been established.