The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by Peggi Tee and her minor daughter, Aishling, against Wicklow County Council’s refusal to provide emergency homeless accommodation on 4 April 2017.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 15 September 2017. He said the case concerned the Council’s decision and its written reasons, issued on 11 April. The court did not determine a separate constitutional or European human-rights claim to a right to shelter, and expressed no view on whether such a right exists.
Under section 2 of the Housing Act 1988, the judgment said, a housing authority must form the opinion both that no accommodation is available which an applicant can reasonably occupy and that the applicant cannot provide accommodation from their own resources. The Council concluded that the applicants did not meet those criteria, citing Ms Tee’s stated access to funds and the family home in Malaysia.
The judgment records competing accounts of what Ms Tee told Council officials at an assessment meeting on 4 April. Ms Tee said she had explained that she could not access her Malaysian retirement fund. Council officials said she had told them she could access €40,000 for housing and education and had family support. The judge said affidavit conflicts could not be resolved without cross-examination, which had not taken place. The applicants, who carried the burden of proof, had not established that the Council relied on an erroneous factual basis.
The court also rejected the challenge to the Council’s conclusion that the applicants were not homeless for the purposes of the Act. It noted that they had lived with Ms Tee’s mother in Malaysia before coming to Ireland and found nothing irrational in the Council taking account of a home outside the State. It said the European Court of Justice’s Zambrano ruling did not assist their argument that the decision would deprive Aishling of the substance of her EU citizenship rights.
The judge said information supplied after the Council’s decision could not determine whether that decision was lawful. The applicants remained able to make a fresh application if relevant information became available or their circumstances changed; the judgment said they had not done so by the time of the hearing.
The application was dismissed. The court did not decide the alleged right to shelter because no challenge to the relevant legislation had been brought on notice to Ireland and the Attorney General.