The High Court has quashed Wicklow County Council’s March 2014 decision to terminate John and Gayle Brady’s tenancy, finding the process unreasonable and disproportionate and that it breached their rights to respect for their home and the inviolability of their dwelling. The court also ordered the council to pay each of them €3,000 in damages.
The case concerned an attic conversion in the couple’s council house in Bray. The Bradys said they had approached Bray Town Council in 2004 and understood they could carry out the work at their own expense. The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 30 June 2016, accepted Mrs Brady’s account on the balance of probabilities. It noted that the tenancy agreement required council consent for alterations but did not require written consent.
In July 2013, a council inspection identified the attic bedroom. The council later raised concerns about fire doors and escape from the attic, directed the family to stop using the space as a bedroom and remove the stairs, and said they could seek retrospective permission. That application would require a fire professional with at least €6.5 million in professional indemnity cover. The court found that the escape window met requirements, that fire doors were in place, and that the insurance threshold was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The council issued a notice to quit in March 2014 after months of correspondence. The Bradys sought judicial review, arguing, among other grounds, that the decision was irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate, and that it was taken in bad faith. The court found the council had failed to account for the earlier consent, the nature and age of the improvement, and the effect of the decision on the family’s home. It also found no independent assessment of whether terminating the tenancy was proportionate, as required in the circumstances under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 40.5 of the Constitution.
The court granted an order quashing the notice to quit and declarations that the decision was unlawful as irrational, unreasonable and disproportionate, and breached the Bradys’ constitutional and Convention rights, including the council’s duties under section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
However, the court rejected the claims that the council acted in bad faith or committed misfeasance in public office, saying there was no substantive evidence of improper purpose or deliberate wrongdoing. It declined several other requested declarations as redundant or duplicative. The judgment concerned the notice to quit and the judicial review; it did not itself grant possession of the home to either party.