The High Court has rejected a challenge by two Traveller women to Limerick City Council notices requiring them to remove caravans parked beside the Bawney’s Bridge halting site.
Julie O’Driscoll and Mary McCarthy had sought judicial review of notices served under section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992. They also sought constitutional relief and a declaration that the legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Both women were living in caravans off the access laneway beside the Council-managed halting site. The court found that neither had permission to occupy the land and that they were trespassers, although the Council had provided temporary water and sanitary services.
The Council planned to refurbish the existing eight-bay halting site after abandoning an earlier proposal for additional housing following Health and Safety Authority advice relating to a nearby fertiliser plant. It said the applicants’ caravans beside the access lane prevented the refurbishment works from starting safely.
Before issuing the formal notices in September 2010, the Council wrote to both applicants in May and June explaining that their caravans were there without permission, that new accommodation could not be built in that area, and that the site had to be cleared before construction work could proceed. Council officials also met the women and offered alternative accommodation, which they declined because they wished to remain at Bawney’s Bridge.
Mr Justice Feeney held that those letters, meetings and the notices themselves adequately explained why the Council had acted.
The applicants argued that they lacked an independent forum capable of reconsidering the Council’s factual conclusion that their caravans caused a nuisance. The judge distinguished their case from the Supreme Court’s Donegan decision. Here, the underlying facts were not disputed; the issue was the Council’s opinion based on those facts. Judicial review could examine whether that decision was lawful and proportionate.
All grounds failed, including the constitutional and European Convention claims. No damages or declaration of incompatibility was granted.