Carton v Dublin Corporation

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Geoghegan
Judgment Date21 January 1993
Neutral Citation1993 WJSC-HC 1711
Docket Number153 J.R./1990
CourtHigh Court
Date21 January 1993
CARTON v. DUBLIN CORPORATION
JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

DEIRDRE CARTON
APPLICANT

AND

THE LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF THE CITY OFDUBLIN
RESPONDENTS

1993 WJSC-HC 1711

153 J.R./1990

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Housing

Accommodation - Application - Refusal - Justification - Applicant - Proxy - Subterfuge - Father of applicant being real applicant - Father being unsuitable tenant - Good estate management - Exceptional circumstances - Housing Act, 1988, s. 11 - (1990/153 JR - Geoghegan J. - 21/1/93) - [1993] ILRM 467

|Carton v. Corporation of Dublin|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Exceptional circumstances"

Housing - Accommodation - Application - Refusal - Justification - Applicant - Proxy - Subterfuge - Father of applicant being real applicant - Father being unsuitable tenant - Good estate management - (1990/153 JR - Geoghegan J. - 21/1/93) [1993] ILRM 467

|Carton v. Corporation of Dublin|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Good estate management"

Housing - Accommodation - Application - Refusal - Justification - Applicant - Proxy - Subterfuge - Father of applicant being real applicant - Father being unsuitable tenant - Exceptional circumstances - (1990/153 JR - Geoghegan J. - 21/1/93) 1993 ILRM 467

|Carton v. Corporation of Dublin|

Citations:

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

O'KEEFFE V AN BORD PLEANALA 1992 ILRM 237

MCDONALD V DUBLIN CO COUNCIL UNREP SUPREME 23.7.80 1980/15/2682

UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK V RYAN UNREP BARRON 21.2.91 1991/6/1486

1

Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered the 21st day of January 1993.

2

This is an Application for Judicial Review of a decision made by the Respondents refusing to accede to an application by the Applicant for housing accommodation. It is sought to have that decision quashed by an Order of Certiorari and that an appropriate Order of Mandamus be made to compel the Respondents to provide suitable accommodation.

3

The housing accommodation sought by the Applicant was accommodation for a family consisting of herself, her father and sister. She expressly indicated that she was not interested in accommodation suitable for herself alone. The Applicant is severely afflicted with epilepsy and her sister is a minor. In these circumstances there would be a natural tendency for any Court to view with sympathy the predicament of theApplicant.

4

But it is Dublin Corporation and not this Court which is the housing authority. This Court therefore can only interfere with the decision of the Respondents in the form of the decision made by the Assistant City Manager as acting City Manager, if that decision flew in the face of reason or was defective on grounds of failure to observe the rules of natural justice or was illegal or ultra vires.

5

These principles clearly emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in The State (Keegan) v. The Stardust Tribunal 1986 I.R. 642and O'Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala 1992 ILRM 237.

6

It is necessary now to consider the legal and factual context in which this decision, so apparently harsh, was made.

7

Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Housing Act 1988(replacing Section 60 of the Housing Act 1966) a housing authority is required to draw up a Scheme of Priorities for letting housing accommodation. The housing authority having established a Scheme is obliged to operate it. (See unreported Judgments of O'Higgins C.J. in the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Dublin County Council delivered the 23rd July 1980 and of Barron J. in University of Limerick v. Ryan delivered 21st February1991).

8

A Scheme has been established by the Respondents. Mr. Callanan for the Applicant makes no criticism of it and specifically does not seek to invalidate paragraph 1.2 of the Scheme. That paragraph reads asfollows:-

"Notwithstanding the provisions of the Scheme in regard to an Applicant's position on the list the city manager may in exceptional circumstances and having considered a report from the Chief Welfare Officer, refuse to allocate a dwelling where he is satisfied that such allocation would be contrary to good estate management."

9

The Assistant City Manager has expressly invoked that clause in refusing the application for housing. I think it important to set out in full the Assistant City Manager's note in connection with his decision. It reads as follows:-

""Deirdre Carton, 486 South Circular Road applied to the Corporation for housing on the 20th of March 1990. In accordance with standard procedure an Environmental Health Officer's report was sought on the accommodation occupied by M/s Carton and on her family circumstances. This report was furnished on the 28th of January 1991 by Mr. Niall Roche, Environmental Health Officer and endorsed by Mr. William O'Sullivan, Supervising Environmental Health Officer."

10

Mr. Michael Kelly, Chief Housing Welfare Officer wrote to M/s Carton on the 14th of February 1991 asking herto call to his office so that he could discuss her housing situation and prepare a report for the housing department.

11

Mr. Kelly received by return on the 21st of February 1991 his own letter of the 14th of February 1991, overwritten with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ryanair Ltd v Flynn
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 de março de 2000
    ...IR 383 GARDA REPRESENTATIVE ASSOC V IRELAND 1994 1 ILRM 81 O'REILLY V SULLIVAN UNREP SUPREME 26.2.1997 1997/11/3523 CARTON V DUBLIN CORP 1993 ILRM 467 LITTONDALE LTD V WICKLOW CO COUNCIL 1996 2 ILRM 519 TRULOC V MCMENAMIN 1994 1 ILRM 151 RYAN V COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1997 1 ILRM 194 ACT......
  • McConnell and McConnell v Dublin City Council and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 de janeiro de 2005
    ...v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237 CARTON v DUBLIN CORPORATION 1993 ILRM 467 P & F SHARPE v DUBLIN CITY & COUNTY MANAGER 1989 ILRM 565 1989 IR 701 HENRY DENNY v MIN SOCIAL WELFARE 1998 1 IR 34 SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCA......
  • Ni Eili v Environmental Protection Agency
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 de fevereiro de 1998
    ...81 O'REILLY VO" SULLIVAN UNREP SUPREME 26.2.1997 1997/11/3523 SCHWESTERMANN V BORD PLEANALA 1995 1 ILRM 269 CARTON V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1993 ILRM 467 LITTONDALE LTD V WICKLOW CO COUNCIL 1996 2 ILRM 519 RYAN V COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1997 1 ILRM 194 ACT SHIPPING LTD V MIN FOR MARINE 1995 2 IR ......
  • Fay v Fingal County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 de novembro de 2003
    ...ENTERPRISES V CENSORSHIP PUBLICATIONS BOARD UNREP SUPREME 4.11.2003 HAVERTY, STATE V AN BORD PLEANALA 1987 IR 485 CARTON V DUBLIN CORP 1993 ILRM 467 HAUGHEY, RE 1971 IR 217 Abstract: Procedure - Service - Property rights - Landfill sites - Waste Management Act, 1996 - Local Government (Plan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT