The High Court has refused South Dublin County Council’s application to strike out a claim for damages brought by a man who said he faced assaults, threats and racial abuse in social housing. The court ruled that he may re-enter only his claim for damages under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, not broader negligence, duty or contract claims listed in his notice.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Charles Meenan on 30 June 2022, arose from judicial review proceedings begun in 2014. The applicant, identified in the judgment as Happy Agamah, had been granted a one-bedroom flat at No. 7 Glenmore Green, Ballyboden, County Dublin. He said his accommodation and taxi were vandalised during serious incidents and asked South Dublin County Council to provide alternative accommodation.
In 2015, the High Court granted certiorari in respect of the council’s decision not to re-accommodate him. The order also gave him “liberty to apply” concerning a damages claim under section 3 of the 2003 Act. The judgment says that, instead of re-entering the judicial review case, he later issued a Circuit Court personal injuries action. That action was struck out by consent, but the parties disputed whether the council agreed that he could return to the High Court to pursue damages.
The council sought to strike out the proceedings for delay and failure to comply with the earlier order, and argued that allowing the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process. Mr Agamah denied that the delay was inordinate or that the proceedings were abusive.
Mr Justice Meenan found that there had been a failure to comply with the earlier order and that the applicant had delayed pursuing damages. But he said the dispute over the terms on which the Circuit Court case was struck out could not be resolved in this application. He was not prepared to reject the applicant’s account on affidavit.
On delay, the judge said the council had to identify prejudice sufficient to tip the balance in favour of striking out. Its evidence that two officials involved in handling the complaint had retired did not say they were unable to give evidence or that relevant documents were missing. The judge also rejected the argument that the retirement of the judge who made the earlier order prevented another judge from assessing any damages.
The court refused the council’s requested order. It held that the applicant may re-enter only the claim for damages under section 3 of the 2003 Act. The significance, if any, of the earlier refusal to grant a declaration remains open to submissions at the damages hearing; the judgment did not determine whether damages are due. The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs by 15 July 2022, with the matter listed for mention on 25 July for final orders.