The High Court has refused to award costs to an applicant who challenged Dublin City Council’s refusal to include his two children on his social housing application. The judicial review proceedings settled on the first day of hearing; the court was asked only to determine the applicant’s claim for costs.
The applicant had sought accommodation suitable for overnight stays with his children. The Council refused his requests in February, May and June 2015 because he had not shown that he was entitled to overnight access. A District Court order gave him joint access with his wife but did not provide for overnight access. It allowed for further access arrangements to be agreed between the parties.
The applicant argued that he was caught in a “catch-22”: he needed suitable accommodation to obtain overnight access, but needed to show overnight access to qualify for suitable accommodation. He also criticised the Council’s housing allocation scheme for not setting out a policy for separated parents with court-ordered access arrangements.
The Council’s position was that the applicant could be considered for the appropriate housing list if he established that he was entitled to occasional overnight access. The judge said the applicant could have sought a letter from his former wife confirming consent to overnight access if suitable accommodation were provided, or applied to the District Court to vary the order. He considered those steps more expedient and proportionate than judicial review and said this was a reason not to award costs.
The judge also concluded that the proceedings were out of time. He found that the applicant had been refused on at least two occasions by June 2015, and that later dealings with the Council involved no new information or decision. Applying the principle that a reiteration of an earlier decision does not restart time, he said the deadline to seek leave was no later than 19 September 2015. The application for leave was made in March 2016, with no extension sought and no explanation for the delay.
The ruling determined costs only after settlement. It did not decide the underlying housing challenge on its merits.