The High Court has rejected a challenge to the summary procedure used to recover a Dublin City Council home after a tenancy ended, finding that the tenant could have sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to terminate her tenancy.
In a judgment delivered on 31 March 2008, Ms Justice Dunne refused the relief sought by Vicky Leonard under the European Convention on Human Rights. Leonard had asked the court to declare section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 incompatible with Ireland’s Convention obligations and to find that the District Court proceedings breached her rights. She also sought damages.
Leonard had rented a Council home at 17 Robert Emmett Walk, Bridgefoot Street, under a weekly tenancy that began in December 2005. The Council had told her before she signed the agreement that her partner, Mark Keating, must not enter or remain at the property. The judgment records that the Council received complaints that he had visited and was living there. At a meeting with Council officials, his presence at the home was admitted. The Council later terminated the tenancy and served a notice to quit and demand for possession.
The District Court issued a possession warrant in February 2007 after the Council applied under section 62. The Circuit Court dismissed Leonard’s appeal in November 2007. Her judicial review challenge to the statutory procedure followed. The High Court judgment records her claim that the District Court refused her request for an adjournment and that she had no meaningful opportunity to present a defence there. Those were her allegations; the High Court was considering the Convention challenge, not rehearing the District Court application.
Section 62 limits the District Court’s role to checking specified formal requirements. The judge said it could not hear the merits of the Council’s decision to end a tenancy. She found that the required proofs for the warrant were in order and that there was no suggestion they had not been met.
On Article 6, the court held that the summary hearing did not breach the right to a fair hearing because judicial review was available to challenge the Council’s administrative decision. The judgment noted that Leonard had received warnings, attended meetings and made representations through solicitors before the tenancy was terminated. She had not challenged the Council’s decision by judicial review.
The court also rejected the Article 8 claim. It accepted that the home fell within Article 8, but held that the right to respect for a home did not give a tenant a right to remain after a tenancy had lawfully ended. In this case, the Council had given reasons for its decision, there was no factual dispute about Keating’s presence, and no improper conduct by the Council was alleged. The court found that judicial review provided a sufficient safeguard in the circumstances.
The court found no basis for the Article 13 or Article 14 claims. It refused all relief. The judgment did not itself issue a possession warrant; the District Court warrant had already been made and the Circuit Court appeal dismissed.