The High Court refused Denis and Sheila Gifford’s application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Dublin City Council from enforcing a warrant for possession of their home at 36 Sean O’Casey Avenue, Summerhill, Dublin.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice T.C. Smyth on 20 November 2007, concerned a tenancy the Council had granted to the couple in 1986. The Council served a notice to quit and demand for possession in January 2007, which took effect in March. After the Giffords did not give up the property, the Council sought possession under section 62 of the Housing Act 1966. The District Court issued a warrant on 28 June 2007 and stayed execution for three months. That stay had expired by the time of the High Court application.
The Giffords sought declarations that section 62, as amended, was incompatible with the State’s obligations under Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the Council had failed to perform its functions compatibly with those obligations. While awaiting a hearing on that claim, they asked for the injunction.
Justice Smyth noted that the Giffords had not appealed the District Court order or sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to end the tenancy. He said the proceedings were, in substance, seeking relief by way of judicial review. The application had not been brought promptly, and the Giffords had given no reasons explaining or excusing the delay. The judge said that ground alone was sufficient to defeat the case, but did not rely on it alone.
The judgment also considered the limits of the remedy sought. Under section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, a declaration of incompatibility would not invalidate or suspend the operation of the legislation or the possession warrant. The judge accepted the Council’s submission that an injunction would therefore be futile. He also said that compensation could be available following a declaration in an appropriate case, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing interim relief.
The court refused the application for an interlocutory injunction. It did not determine the Giffords’ underlying claims for declarations at a trial.