The High Court has refused an ex parte injunction sought by Patrick McGreal to restrain the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage from using Dundrum House Hotel to accommodate applicants for international protection. The decision does not determine the judicial review challenge to the regulations that permit certain temporary accommodation uses without planning permission.
Mr Justice David Holland delivered the ruling on 31 July 2024. The case was at an early stage: leave to seek judicial review had not yet been granted or refused, and the Minister had not been heard on the injunction application.
Mr McGreal argued that the Planning and Development (Exempted Development) (No. 4) Regulations 2023 were invalid and should be quashed. He contended that they exceeded powers under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and breached constitutional provisions. The judge found the statutory-power arguments and the constitutional arguments advanced to be unstateable for the purpose of the application.
The judge also concluded that the urgency required for a one-sided injunction had not been established. While the possibility of arrivals at the hotel had become apparent in the preceding days, the general prospect had been known for weeks. The court said an applicant could not rely on urgency created by their own inaction, and found no evidence of irreparable harm to relevant interests in the short period before an on-notice hearing could take place.
Mr McGreal lives in County Westmeath and was not shown to have a practical connection to Dundrum. The judgment records that 230 local residents had sworn affidavits supporting the application; they were not applicants in the proceedings. The court considered the concerns raised, including community safety, infrastructure and the hotel’s use, but said it had no evidence of imminent irreparable harm. It also noted that the hotel had been used to accommodate Ukrainian refugees for about two years.
Applying principles governing interim relief in public law cases, the judge gave weight to the presumption that the regulations were valid and to the State’s interest and obligations in accommodating people seeking international protection. He refused the injunction on the grounds that the case was not stateable, the required urgency and irreparable harm had not been shown, and the balance of the risk of injustice favoured refusal.
The order was limited to refusing the ex parte injunction. The judgment did not decide the ultimate validity of the regulations or the judicial review claim, and it did not determine any later application for interlocutory relief after the Minister had been heard.