Jason Robinson v Dublin City Council, Ireland and Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 24 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] IEHC 605
• Court: High Court
• Date: 24 October 2012

[2012] IEHC 605

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 540 J.R./2009]

Robinson v Dublin City Council & Ors

BETWEEN

JASON ROBINSON

APPLICANT

AND

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

HOUSING ACT 1966 S62

YORDANOVA & ORS v BULGARIA CASE APPLICATION NO. 25446/06 24.9.2012

BJEDOV v CROATIA CASE APPLICATION NO. 42150/09 29.08.2012

RSC O.84 r21

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL v FENNELL 2005 1 IR 604

QUINN v ATHLONE CO COUNCIL UNREP HEDIGAN 8.7.2010 2010/44/11058 2010 IEHC 270

ROCK v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL UNREP SUPREME 8.2.2006 2006/50/10677 2005 IESC 18

Judicial review – Housing - Succession of tenancy - Time limit – Notice to quit - Delay - Proportionality -- Reasonableness – Rules of the Superior Courts

Facts: These proceedings concerned an application for judicial review brought by the applicant who was seeking an order of certiorari and declaratory relief against a decision of the Housing Authority which refused his appeal against a decision that refused him succession to a tenancy at a property located at 35F, St. Michan”s House, Greek Street, Dublin. It was undisputed that the property had been occupied by the applicant”s grandmother from 1964 until her death on the 22nd June 2008, and that the applicant had lived there from 2005. The applicant”s application to be allowed to succeed his grandmother”s tenancy was refused by the Housing Authority at first instance on 14th July 2008, and on appeal on the 30th July 2008. Thereafter, he refused to surrender possession of the premises. He made further submissions but he was informed that these were unsuccessful on the 5 ^th January 2009. The Housing Authority served a notice to quit on the 17 ^th October 2008 and then sought a warrant for possession pursuant to s. 62 of the Housing Act 1966 which was served and then adjourned until the 4th June 2009. In the interim, the applicant brought judicial review proceedings with leave to apply being granted on the 25th May 2009.

The applicant argued that the procedure the Housing Authority adopted in reaching the decision of the 5th January 2009 was flawed in that it did not consider the principles of proportionality and reasonableness of his proposed eviction. It was said that the recent European Court of Human Rights decisions in Yordanova v. Bulgaria of 24th April 2012, Bjedov v. Crotia, 29th May 2012 and Buckland v. United Kingdom, 18th September 2012 allowed him to argue such principles despite the fact he had no legal entitlement to remain in the property. The respondents argued that the application for judicial review had to be refused as it had been made out of time. It was undisputed that the judicial review proceedings were initiated on the 21 ^st May 2009.

Held by Hedigan J that in determining the time limit in which judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge a Housing Authority decision should be brought, the application should be made as soon as possible after a notice to quit is served pursuant to Order 84, rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. This interpretation was held to be found in case law and it was explained that this was the case as an individual”s rights and obligations became fully engaged when such a notice was served.

In the present case, it was said that the applicants continued engagement with the Housing Authority until January 2009 did not change the fact that the applicant should have brought judicial review proceedings without delay after the notice to quit was served. It was further held that even if that wasn”t the case, the application should have been brought as soon as possible after the decision in January 2009 when communication between the parties was discontinued, and certainly no later than the end of that month. The application was therefore considered to have been made out of time.

Relief sought refused.

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 24th day of October, 2012.

2 1. In these proceedings the applicant seeks judicial review by way of certiorari and certain declarations of a decision communicated to him on the 5 ^th January, 2009 refusing his appeal against the decision of the Housing Authority refusing his application for succession to a tenancy at 35F, St. Michan's House, Greek Street, Dublin, 7.

3 2. The proceedings arise from the following facts which are largely undisputed. At some stage after the death of his father, the applicant moved out of his parents' home and into the house of his grandmother. She had resided there as a tenant of the Housing Authority since 1964. He lived there according to his application to succeed to the tenancy since 2005. At that time he was registered on the rent book as living with his grandmother. In her later years, his grandmother suffered from Alzheimer's disease and he acted as her carer. On the 22 ^nd June, 2008 his grandmother died.

4 3. Early in July the applicant applied to the Housing...