The High Court quashed Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s refusal to consider Lisa Kinsella’s social housing application and remitted it to the council to decide on its merits. The court ruled that being housed by another local authority did not, by itself, disqualify her from applying. It did not decide whether she should receive housing support.
Ms Kinsella had lived with her five-year-old daughter in a Dublin City Council tenancy at 5A Ormond Square, Ormond Quay, since October 2007. The judgment says she has epilepsy and experiences more than ten seizures a week. It describes anti-social behaviour in the area, including verbal abuse, late-night noise and an assault, as having serious implications for her condition. Her aunt and uncle lived in Sallynoggin, within Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown’s area, and she had lived there until she was 15.
In September 2011, she applied to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown for social housing on medical grounds and citing her local connection. The council returned the application in November, saying she was already housed by Dublin City Council and was therefore ineligible to apply elsewhere. After her solicitor raised her medical need and local connection, the council maintained that position and said she should pursue transfer options through Dublin City Council, including a mutual transfer.
Ms Kinsella sought judicial review, arguing that the council had acted outside its powers by rejecting the application at the outset without considering its merits. The council argued that the legislation did not allow an existing social housing tenant to apply to another authority.
Mr Justice Hogan held that the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and the 2011 regulations required a housing authority to assess an application in two stages: eligibility first, then need if the applicant was eligible. He rejected the council’s argument that the law contained an implied bar on applications by people already receiving housing support elsewhere. In his view, the legislation set out the relevant restrictions expressly, and the court could not add another restriction through interpretation.
The court concluded that Ms Kinsella was entitled to apply and was not disqualified by law from doing so. It quashed the council’s refusal and returned the application for the council to adjudicate on its merits. The judgment did not determine her eligibility on assessment, her housing need or the outcome of the application.