The High Court refused a tenant’s judicial review challenge to the procedure used in an eviction case, finding that she should have challenged the notice to quit and had waited too long to bring proceedings.
The case concerned section 62 of the Housing Act 1966, as amended, which the applicant argued was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and invalid under the Constitution. The judgment dealt only with three preliminary objections raised by the respondents; it did not determine the underlying constitutional or Convention challenge.
The notice to quit was served on 25 September 2008. An ejectment summons followed in the District Court on 7 January 2009. After an adjournment request was refused, the District Court began a hearing on the merits on 15 July 2009. The applicant and the local authority each instituted judicial review proceedings on 27 July 2009; the authority’s case resulted in an order requiring the District Court to hear and determine the matter.
The respondents argued that the applicant should have challenged the notice to quit itself, rather than the later procedure under section 62. The applicant’s counsel argued that time should run from the District Court’s refusal to adjourn on 3 July 2009, or from the hearing on 15 July, and that the challenge was therefore in time. The applicant also sought an extension if the court found otherwise.
Justice Hedigan held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dublin City Council v Fennell required the court to treat service of the notice to quit as the point when the relevant legal rights were engaged. The applicant had brought her case almost ten months after that notice. The judge found no convincing reason to extend the time limit, citing the applicant’s decision to participate in the District Court proceedings and the interests of neighbours affected by allegations of anti-social behaviour.
The court also accepted the respondents’ preliminary objection based on acquiescence, finding that the applicant had fully participated in the District Court proceedings. It refused the application. The judgment did not decide whether section 62 was incompatible with the Convention or invalid under the Constitution.