The High Court has found that Limerick County Council failed to meet statutory duties concerning accommodation for two Traveller families in Kilmallock. The court had not yet settled the terms of any orders when judgment was delivered on 29 March 2006, and deferred that question for a further hearing.
The families sought judicial review after the council initiated Circuit Court proceedings to remove them from roadside encampments. They asked the High Court to quash the enforcement action and sought suitable alternative accommodation or essential services, among other reliefs. The Circuit Court proceedings remained adjourned; the High Court did not decide their outcome.
The applicants said halting-site accommodation was their preference and that the existing Kilmallock site was unavailable to them. The council accepted that no halting-site space was available there for allocation, but said it intended ultimately to accommodate the families at that site and disputed that it had breached its duties. The site’s ownership and control were also contested in separate, anticipated proceedings involving a non-party. The High Court made no finding on that dispute.
The judge found that the council’s 2005–2008 Traveller Accommodation Programme identified the families’ need but did not specify in detail how it would be met. Its stated intention to improve the existing site was conditional, and the evidence showed no concrete implementation steps or alternative site proposal. The court held that the programme failed to comply with statutory duties to specify needed accommodation and measures to provide it. It also found a failure under the Planning and Development Act: the county development plan identified no areas for Traveller accommodation in Kilmallock.
The judgment further held that the council had not shown reasonable temporary measures to address the families’ immediate accommodation needs while longer-term plans remained unfulfilled. The judge rejected the council’s argument that the families’ return to roadside living after accepting conventional housing should prevent relief. He concluded that, in their circumstances, their housing choices were not fully informed and that seeking halting-site accommodation near Kilmallock was not unreasonable.
The ruling addressed the families’ claims against the council on statutory duties. The court expressly left the constitutional and European Convention issues involving the notice parties for a later stage. It also did not direct a specific accommodation solution in this judgment; counsel were to be heard on the terms of orders.