The High Court awarded €20,000 in compensatory damages to two adult tenants after finding that Dublin City Council’s process for pursuing their eviction breached their Convention rights. The damages decision did not set aside the possession warrant or grant the tenants an injunction against eviction.
The case concerns council tenants Laurence Pullen and Carol Pullen, who were also plaintiffs with their two minor children. The court had previously found that the council’s investigation of anti-social behaviour complaints, followed by use of the summary procedure under section 62 of the Housing Act 1966, denied the plaintiffs a fair hearing and unjustifiably interfered with their right to respect for their home.
The council obtained a District Court possession warrant in November 2006. The tenants’ appeal to the Circuit Court was unsuccessful, and the warrant was sent to the sheriff for execution in September 2007. It had not been executed by the time of the damages judgment. In an earlier decision, the High Court held it had no jurisdiction to grant the requested injunction, concluding that damages under section 3(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 were the available remedy for the breach at issue.
The tenants sought general damages, citing distress, inconvenience, loss of opportunity, damage to status and reputation, and uncertainty about future housing. Their counsel argued that the claim was not premature because the council intended to proceed with eviction. The council argued that damages required proof of injury or loss and that the tenants had not yet been evicted. It also submitted that alternative accommodation and social welfare support might be available.
The court found that the anti-social behaviour finding had practical consequences beyond the possession order. It noted that housing legislation allowed authorities, in certain circumstances, to refuse or defer housing allocations and to refuse a sale, and provided for information-sharing. The court also considered the tenancy agreement’s terms on rehousing after eviction for anti-social behaviour, along with uncontested expert evidence about the risk of homelessness and periods in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
The judge said the damages had to compensate for consequences causally connected to the rights breach. In assessing them, the court considered evidence about the first adult plaintiff’s physical disabilities and the second adult plaintiff’s susceptibility to depression, acute anxiety and panic attacks, as well as the couple’s vulnerability to homelessness. It awarded €20,000 to the first and second named plaintiffs together. The judgment did not award damages to the minor plaintiffs.