The High Court refused an application by a Traveller family to add discrimination claims to their judicial review challenge over housing accommodation from Clare County Council. The court extended the time for making the amendment application, but rejected the proposed amendments and did not decide the underlying housing case.
The original proceedings sought orders requiring the council to provide suitable accommodation and declarations concerning the family’s housing needs and the council’s statutory duties. The applicants said their accommodation was unsuitable and that they were unable to obtain suitable alternatives. Those claims remained allegations in the proceedings.
The amendment application followed a council letter dated 1 March 2017. The letter said the council intended to offer the family a refurbished house they had previously occupied, but stated that insurance was unavailable for council housing occupied by the first named applicant where damage arose from a malicious fire. The council asked the family to hold it harmless for injury, loss or damage arising from a fire at the offered property. The family’s solicitor said they could not obtain insurance against the requested risk. In an affidavit, the applicants denied knowing about or being involved in the earlier fire.
The proposed amendments relied in part on the Taoiseach’s 1 March 2017 recognition of the Traveller community as an ethnic group. They alleged that the council’s insurance-related request and other material showed direct or indirect discrimination. The council opposed the changes, arguing that they were late and that the evidence did not establish a link between the request and the applicants’ Traveller identity.
Mr Justice Eagar found that the amendment application was two days outside the three-month period. He extended time, accepting that there was a good and sufficient reason for the short delay, that the delay arose from circumstances outside the applicants’ control, and that the council knew the nature of the proposed application and would not be prejudiced.
The court refused the proposed discrimination grounds because they would amount to an entirely different case from the original housing challenge. It also held that the Taoiseach’s statement was not legislation and had no legal effect for the purposes of these proceedings. The judgment therefore decided only the amendment application; it did not determine whether the family was entitled to housing or whether discrimination had occurred.