Gifford & Anor -v- Dublin City Council, [2007] IEHC 387 (2007)

Docket Number:2007 7212 P
Party Name:Gifford & Anor, Dublin City Council
Judge:Smyth J.



JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice T.C. Smyth delivered on the 20th day of November, 2007

The Plaintiff seeks an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants or agents from taking any steps to enforce the warrant for possession of 36 Sean O'Casey Avenue in Summerhill, Dublin of the Dublin District Court on the 28th June 2007.

The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated:a) The Defendant ('the Council') let the dwelling house at 36 Sean O'Casey Avenue, Summerhill in the City of Dublin ('the premises') to the Plaintiffs under a Tenancy Agreement of 7th May 1986; the tenancy granted was a joint tenancy from week to week.b) The Plaintiff's tenancy was terminated by a Notice to Quit and demand for possession dated 30th January 2007 which took effect on 12th March 2007. The Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Council's demand for possession.c) On 20th March 2007 the Council issued a summons pursuant to Section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 as amended by Section 13 of the Housing Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Section 62) in the District Court to recover possession of the premises. On 28th June 2007 the District Court granted the Council a warrant for possession of the dwelling and imposed a stay of execution thereon for a period of three months, which period has now expired.Before considering the application for injunctive relief the following points may be noted:-1. The Plaintiff did not appeal the order of the District Court of 28th June 2007.

  1. The Plaintiffs have not challenged the legality of the Council's decision to terminate their tenancy in the dwelling house (premises) by way of application for judicial review.The proceedings as formulated essentially seek declaratory relief [but until the hearing to determine such, seek an interlocutory injunction] that:-I Section 62 of the Housing Act 1966 (as amended) is incompatible with the obligations of the State under Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.II The Defendant ('the Council') has failed to perform its functions in a manner compatible with the State's obligations under Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.It was common case the principles applicable to the instant application are those set out in Campus Oil v. Minister for Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] IR 88 to wit:-(a) The...

To continue reading