The Supreme Court declared unlawful the eviction of Ann Moore from her family home under a warrant obtained without the notice required by court rules. It also decided that Ms Moore was entitled to damages in principle, but did not set an amount. The Court scheduled further submissions on how damages should be assessed.
Ms Moore was the sole appellant in the case. She and Christopher Moore had been tenants of a property at 4 Glennatan, Loughlinstown, since 1993. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council obtained a District Court possession order on 18 December 2008. Under the applicable rules, a warrant could issue within six months; after that, the council had to apply to the court on notice to the tenants.
The warrant was sought more than 16 months after the possession order, without an application on notice. The judgment recounts that draft order and warrant documents were sent to a District Court clerk in March 2010, signed by a judge on 29 April, and executed by the Sheriff on 14 May. The Supreme Court said the Sheriff was presented with a warrant that appeared valid and made no criticism of his actions. The council gave no satisfactory explanation for how the late warrant was obtained, and its counsel could not say whether this was a one-off error or reflected a broader practice.
The High Court had accepted that the warrant was unlawful but declined to grant judicial review relief, citing the circumstances and the conduct of the parties. Ms Moore appealed that refusal. The Supreme Court held that denying her the required opportunity to oppose the late warrant was a fundamental failure of fair process, not a technical defect. It said the High Court was not entitled to refuse all relief in the circumstances.
The Court did not order Ms Moore’s return to the home. Her counsel accepted that such an order was no longer appropriate, and the Court noted potential effects on a third party then occupying the property. It declared the eviction unlawful and determined that Ms Moore was entitled to damages at the level of principle. The amount, the forum for assessment, the principles to be applied, and whether rent arrears should be considered remained for further submissions. The Court did not decide those questions in this judgment.