The High Court has ruled that University of Limerick student accommodation qualifies as a “dwelling” under water services legislation during the academic year, meaning Irish Water is not entitled to charge for water supplied to it within the statutory limits on use and domestic allowances.
Ms Justice Bolger delivered judgment on 27 November 2023 in a judicial review brought by the University of Limerick and Plassey Trust Company Limited against Irish Water. The dispute followed Irish Water’s June 2021 decision that units making up the university’s student accommodation were liable for water charges.
The accommodation is available exclusively to UL students from September to May. During June to August it is used by some students but mainly by conference delegates, tourists and other non-students. UL challenged the charges only for the academic year and did not dispute that it must pay charges for the accommodation outside that period.
The court found that students occupy the units as their private residence during the academic year, even though their licences impose conditions and UL retains certain rights, including inspection and room changes. The judge said those restrictions did not establish that UL remained the occupier. She also found that neither the campus water-meter system nor UL’s failure to notify Irish Water of the students’ identities determined whether the accommodation met the statutory definition.
The judge distinguished the academic-year use from the university’s summer use of the units for short-term commercial accommodation. She said the accommodation was built to house students, rather than to operate a hotel or self-catering business, and that students could treat it as a private residence even if they also had a principal home elsewhere.
The court did not quash Irish Water’s decision. As both parties are public bodies, the judge said a declaration would be sufficient and expected the parties to respect it. She said she would hear counsel on whether any further orders were required.
The judge’s indicative view was that the applicants were entitled to their costs. The case was listed for a further mention on 11 December 2023 to hear submissions on costs and the scope and application of the final orders. The judgment does not record the outcome of that later hearing.