Judgment: 2005-05-12 · Court archive

Supreme Court rules 2003 human rights law did not apply to Ballymun possession case already under way

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jeanette Fennell (Defendant)
  • Dublin City Council (Plaintiff)
What

Supreme Court rules 2003 human rights law did not apply to Ballymun possession case already under way

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 146 Balbutcher Lane, Ballymun, Dublin 11
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Kearns held that it did not. The 2003 Act created substantive obligations but contained no clear intention that they should alter rights and liabilities arising from past events or pending litigation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Ireland’s 2003 human rights legislation could not retrospectively alter possession proceedings already brought by Dublin City Council against a Ballymun tenant.

Jeanette Fennell had rented a council dwelling at 146 Balbutcher Lane, Ballymun, Dublin 11 since March 1996. Her tenancy agreement allowed Dublin City Council to terminate the tenancy on four weeks’ notice.

The Council decided in June 2003 to end the tenancy following alleged misbehaviour at the property. A notice to quit was served in July, requiring possession by 1 September. When Fennell remained in occupation, the Council began proceedings under section 62 of the Housing Act 1966.

The District Court granted a possession warrant on 12 December 2003. Fennell appealed to the Circuit Court on 23 December. Eight days later, on 31 December, the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 came into force.

The Circuit Court then asked the Supreme Court whether the new Act applied to the pending possession proceedings and whether section 62 now had to be interpreted compatibly with Convention rights.

Mr Justice Kearns held that it did not. The 2003 Act created substantive obligations but contained no clear intention that they should alter rights and liabilities arising from past events or pending litigation.

Although an appeal from the District Court to the Circuit Court is a full rehearing, the Supreme Court held that it remained part of the same legal process. The parties’ rights had already crystallised when the Council invoked section 62 before the 2003 Act commenced.

The court therefore answered the first three questions from the Circuit Court in the negative. It did not decide the fourth question — whether Convention-compatible interpretation would require a local authority to justify terminating a tenancy — because that issue did not arise once retrospectivity was rejected.

The ruling concerned which law governed the proceedings. It did not determine whether Dublin City Council ultimately obtained possession of Fennell’s home.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review