The High Court has refused a father and his minor son permission to bring a judicial review against Fingal County Council and the Health Service Executive over the handling of their housing application and a disability-related priority request.
The decision, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 7 May 2019, concerned an application for leave heard on notice to both respondents. It was not a full judicial review hearing, and the court did not determine the underlying challenge after a trial.
The applicants sought to overturn Fingal’s decision to place their application at position 1555 on its housing list. They also sought a declaration that the council had failed to give medical disability priority, orders requiring priority or suitable accommodation, and compensation. Their arguments included that the council should have sought more supporting documents and that an HSE letter from 2009 supported a housing need for the son.
The court noted that the housing application, submitted in May 2017, included the 2009 HSE letter but no consultant’s certificate. The application form requested such a certificate for applications on medical or disability grounds. A GP report was later provided to Fingal in March 2019. The judge said it might lead to a change in the applicants’ allocation category, but it had not been before the council when it initially processed the application.
The judge refused leave against the HSE, finding that any challenge based on its 2009 letter was brought too late, at the latest by reference to the 2011 service statement. As to Fingal, the court found that an appeal against the allocation had not been pursued and that the applicants could submit medical information that might affect their category. The judge also found the existing grounds did not establish an arguable case, including because the application form gave the council discretion to request further documents rather than imposing an obligation to do so.
The court found the existing grounds against Fingal were not out of time by reference to a July 2017 letter, which the judge said there was no evidence the applicants received. But the applicants’ proposed additional grounds concerned facts they had known since May 2017, and the court refused permission to add them because they were outside the three-month period and no sufficient explanation for delay had been provided.
The court allowed correction of a typographical error in an affidavit. It refused leave to seek judicial review against both respondents. The judgment does not decide whether the applicants ultimately qualified for a higher housing priority or suitable accommodation.