The High Court refused Frances and William Webster’s application for judicial review challenging Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council’s use of a statutory procedure to seek possession of their home.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 22 March 2013. The applicants sought to quash the council’s decision to bring possession proceedings under section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 and requested declarations concerning the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The council had allocated the tenancy in 1985. After rent arrears accumulated, it served a notice to quit on 12 January 2010, requiring the Websters to leave by 20 February. The council later applied to the District Court for possession under section 62. The judgment records that the arrears stood at €19,280 in December 2009, and that the applicants accepted the arrears existed.
The council’s original reasons for ending the tenancy included alleged anti-social behaviour and unpaid rent. After Supreme Court decisions concerning the section 62 process, the council told the applicants in March 2012 that it would rely on rent arrears alone. The judge said the applicants had not amended their judicial review grounds to challenge that change, so the court had no jurisdiction to decide their argument that the council had improperly altered its reasons.
The judge found the Websters had challenged the use of section 62 promptly. Their application was made five weeks after the council began proceedings under that section. The notice to quit itself, however, was not challenged and was beyond challenge. The judgment said the tenancy had therefore ended and the applicants remained in the property without a valid tenancy.
The court rejected the applicants’ arguments that section 62 unlawfully discriminated between public and private tenants or unjustly interfered with property rights. It found the summary process was justified by housing authorities’ duty to manage limited housing resources.
The judge noted that the Supreme Court had already declared section 62 incompatible with Article 8 in cases involving material factual disputes about the grounds for eviction. Here, the council was proceeding on the admitted rent arrears, and the court found no factual dispute requiring independent determination. Considering later European human rights decisions about proportionality review, the judge said the applicants’ circumstances did not support a finding of incompatibility: the council had put forward reasons tied to protecting its property and managing its housing stock, and the arrears were very large.
The court refused all reliefs sought. The judgment did not itself make a possession order; it determined the judicial review application challenging the council’s section 62 procedure.