The High Court found that a warrant used to evict Christopher Moore and Ann Moore from their council home was invalid, but refused to quash it or order their return. Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled on 29 November 2010 that the warrant had been issued more than six months after the possession order without the application required by the District Court Rules. The warrant was therefore not lawful authority for the eviction. The court nevertheless concluded that granting the relief sought would serve no useful purpose.
The Moores and their family had rented the home at 4 Gleanntan, Loughlinstown, from Dun Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council since 1993. The council obtained a District Court possession order on 18 December 2008 following rent arrears. A warrant was issued on 29 April 2010, and the family was evicted on 14 May.
The applicants asked the High Court to quash the warrant, declare the eviction unlawful, direct the council to restore them to the home and award damages. They argued that the warrant was issued outside the six-month limit without an application on notice, and that it did not follow the prescribed form. They also said the Sheriff acted before 8am, contrary to the statutory hours. The council argued that any errors should not justify the requested remedies, citing the rent arrears, its dealings with the applicants and the fact that the tenancy had ended.
The judge rejected the challenge to the warrant’s wording. Although the warrant differed from the form in the District Court Rules, he found that its direction to execute within one month complied with the amended statute. He said the prescribed form appeared inconsistent with that statute and that the Rules Committee should consider correcting it.
The court found that possession was obtained at about 7.45am, around 15 minutes before the permitted time. It treated this as a minor departure that, without specific prejudice, did not by itself warrant relief. The judge’s decisive finding was that the warrant had been issued without the required District Court application after six months had passed. That application would have given the Moores an opportunity to make submissions, including about their circumstances and proportionality.
However, the judge accepted the council’s evidence that the applicants had been informed of its intention to evict and rejected their claim that they did not know of the possession proceedings. The possession order itself remained unchallenged, and the tenancy had ended. The court held that the invalid warrant was spent and that quashing it could not restore the family to the home. It refused all the reliefs sought.