The High Court has refused Roberto Alamazani leave to bring judicial review proceedings challenging a District Court possession order in favour of Dublin City Council. The court also ordered him to pay the costs of the application and stayed execution of the possession order for three days.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty said the case remained at the leave stage. She refused leave after finding no basis to review the District Court decision. The court did not determine whether the property was fit to live in or whether the applicant was entitled to a refund of rent.
The District Court made the possession order on 15 April 2024 under section 12 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014. It was to take effect from 15 June, with execution due by 15 January 2025. The District Court also awarded the council €13,663.85 for rent arrears. Alamazani had not appealed that decision, although a full appeal to the Circuit Court was available. Justice Gearty said judicial review is generally available only after other remedies have been exhausted, but considered the substance of his claims before deciding whether leave should be granted.
Alamazani argued that the District Court judge should have recused herself because he had complained about her to the Judicial Council. The High Court found no evidence supporting an apprehension of bias and noted that he had not shown he had asked the District Court judge to recuse herself. The judgment said the existence of a complaint alone did not establish bias.
He also alleged that a council inspection report was false or misleading, that the premises was unsuitable, and that he had not been allowed to present his case. The High Court noted that the District Court order recorded that he had been notified of the hearing but did not attend on 15 April. The applicant gave no reason for his absence or evidence about the property's condition or any rent or deposit he had paid. The judge said his claims did not provide grounds to quash the order.
The applicant sought an adjournment to obtain legal advice. The court refused, noting that the case had already been adjourned and that the possession order was time-sensitive. The council, which was not a respondent or notice party in the judicial review, undertook not to take steps to execute the order before the judgment was received.
After refusing leave, the court ordered Alamazani to pay the respondent's costs. It granted a three-day stay of the District Court order to prevent immediate eviction and directed him to act promptly if pursuing an appeal. The stay did not extend beyond three days.