The High Court found that South Dublin County Council breached the Article 8 rights of three siblings with severe disabilities by leaving them in overcrowded, inadequate accommodation at a temporary halting site in Clondalkin. The court adjourned the case so the parties could consider the judgment. It did not order the council to provide a second mobile home or decide damages.
In a judgment delivered on 22 May 2007, Miss Justice Laffoy said the siblings’ existing mobile home was “grossly over-crowded, potentially unsafe” and wholly unsuitable to their needs. The three siblings, Mary, Patrick and Bernard O’Donnell, live with family members at Lynch’s Lane. The council accepted that their accommodation was inadequate and planned to provide a larger bay and day house as part of a permanent site development expected to be ready in 2008.
The siblings sought a second wheelchair-accessible mobile home with ramped access and suitable shower and toilet facilities, or funding to obtain one. The council argued, among other things, that a caravan loan could help ease the overcrowding and that permanent accommodation was planned under its Traveller Accommodation Programme.
The judge found that the proposed loan would not fund a suitable home for any of the plaintiffs. She said the evidence showed an urgent need for more appropriate accommodation, and that the delay before the permanent site was expected to be available left the siblings in unacceptable conditions. The council had known since at least January 2005 that more accommodation was needed, the judgment said.
The court held that the particular circumstances—including the siblings’ disabilities, dependence on family care and the duration and conditions of their accommodation—established a breach of Article 8, which protects respect for private and family life and the home. The judge said this was an exceptional case and did not establish a general duty to provide two mobile homes to traveller families.
The court rejected claims that the council had breached its statutory housing duties, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Equal Status Act or Article 14, or the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. It also rejected the council’s argument that Bernard’s claim was barred by his 2002 proceedings, finding that his current claim concerned later circumstances.
The only remedy available on the claims as presented was damages, the judge said. Evidence put the current cost of a similar mobile home at €58,000. She adjourned the matter to allow the parties to decide how to proceed. The judgment made no final award of damages and no order requiring the council to provide accommodation. The judge added that any assets accruing to the plaintiffs should be secured for them, rather than for the wider family.