O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judge | Mr. Justice Costello |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1989 |
Neutral Citation | 1988 WJSC-HC 2829 |
Date | 01 January 1989 |
AND
1988 WJSC-HC 2829
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Housing
Housing authority - Duties - Breach - Building programme - Review
- Provision for members of traveller community who refuse to live
in houses - Constitution - Personal rights - Infringement -
Damages - Administration of justice - Distributive and
commutative justice - Distinction - Separation of powers - The
plaintiffs were members of the traveller community who lived,
with their children, in conditions of great poverty and
deprivation in caravans on unauthorised sites within the
functional area of the defendant housing authority - The
plaintiffs lacked access to running water, toilet facilities,
hard standing for their caravans, and facilities for the storage
and removal of their domestic refuse - The plaintiffs submitted
(inter alia) in the High Court that the defendant authority was
in breach of a statutory duty to provide a sufficient number of
serviced halting sites for the needs of the plaintiffs, and they
claimed an order of mandamus directing the defendant authority to
provide such sites - The plaintiffs also claimed damages from the
State for the suffering, inconvenience and mental stress they had
endured by reason of the State's infringement of the personal
rights conferred on the plaintiffs and their families by Articles
40 and 41 of the Constitution - It was accepted by the defendant
authority that the plaintiffs were a special category of the
traveller community and that their housing needs could not be met
satisfactorily by the provision of standard houses - A working
party, consisting of representatives of the defendant authority
and local bodies, prepared a report which recommended the
provision of water, sanitary facilities, animal enclosures and
refuse arrangements at the existing unauthorised sites used by
the plaintiffs - The report also recommended the provision of ten
serviced sites for the accommodation of 40 families of the
traveller community - In April, 1986, the defendant authority
acknowledged the special needs of the traveller community in a
motion which accepted in principle the establishment of eight
serviced halting sites within the functional area of the
authority - Section 55, sub-s. 1, of the Act of 1966 states that
it shall be a duty of a housing authority to prepare and adopt a
building programme setting out the works which they propose to
undertake having regard to the housing needs of their functional
area - Sub-section 2 of s. 55 states that a building programme
shall include the proposals of a housing authority for the
provision of houses, amenities, buildings and other land together
with the ancillary works or services to be provided in connection
therewith; the sub-section states that a housing authority may
include in the programme an order of priorities relating to
projects to provide housing accommodation for particular
categories or persons - Sub-section 3 of s. 55 states that, in
preparing a building programme, a housing authority shall have
regard (inter alia) to the provision of adequate and suitable
housing accommodation for persons who, in the opinion of the
authority, are in need of and are unable to provide such
accommodation from their own resources - Sub-section 4 states
that, where a housing authority has prepared and adopted a
building programme, it shall review the programme from time to
time as the Minister "or occasion" may require, and that the
authority may make and adopt any variation which it considers
proper - Held that neither s. 55 nor s. 60 of the Act of 1966
imposes upon the defendant housing authority the duty to provide
serviced halting sites for members of the traveller community -
Held that the power of the defendant Minister under s. 111 of the
Act to order a housing authority to perform one of its functions
under the Act is a power exercisable at the discretion of the
Minister and is not one which a court could direct him to
exercise - Held that s. 55 of the Act confers on the defendant
authority power to include in it's building programme proposals
for the provision of serviced halting sites for use by members of
the traveller community - Held that, where (inter alia) the
necessary financial resources are available, a duty is imposed on
a housing authority by the Act of 1966 to include proposals for
the provision of such sites for such use - Held that, where the
need for such provision has arisen after the adoption of the
building programme of a housing authority, it is the duty of the
authority to vary the programme by adding a suitable proposal for
the provision of such sites - Held that the plaintiffs were
entitled to a declaration that the defendant authority is obliged
to review its building programme adopted in 1985 and to vary it
so as to include proposals relating to the provision of serviced
sites in its functional area for use by members of the traveller
community - Held that the plaintiffs" claim to damages against
the State for its failure to provide the plaintiffs with a basic
standard of living conditions, contrary to the rights conferred
on the plaintiffs by Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution, must
be dismissed since that claim involved a review of the manner in
which the Oireachtas had disposed of the resources of the State
and, accordingly, fell outside the scope of the administration of
justice by the Courts as prescribed by the principle of the
separation of powers - Housing Act, 1966, ss. 55–60, 111 -
Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 40, 41 - (1987/10319 P -
Costello J. - 3/5/88)
|O'Reilly v. Corporation of Limerick|
CONSTITUTION
Courts
Administration of justice - Oireachtas - Social policy -
Application - Review by courts sought by plaintiff - Review
excluded from jurisdiction of courts - Unsuccessful claim by
members of traveller community for damages from the State for its
failure to provide basic living conditions - ~See~ Local
Government, housing - (1987/10319 P - Costello J. - 3/5/88)
|O'Reilly v. Corporation of Limerick|
HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction
Oireachtas - Social policy - Application - Review - Separation of
powers - Exclusion of review from jurisdiction of court -
Unsuccessful claim by members of traveller community for damages
from the State for its failure to provide basic living conditions
- ~See~ Local Government, housing - (1987/10319 P - Costello J. -
3/5/88)
|O'Reilly v. Corporation of Limerick|
Citations:
MCDONALD V FEELY UNREP 1980/15/2682
HOUSING ACT 1966 S53
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55(1)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55(2)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55(3)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55(4)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S55(5)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S56
HOUSING ACT 1966 S56(2)
HOUSING ACT 1966 S57
HOUSING ACT 1966 S58
HOUSING ACT 1966 S59
HOUSING ACT 1966 S60
MCNAMEE V BUNCRANA UDC 1983 IR 213, 1984 ILRM 77
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
CONSTITUTION ART 41.2
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
Judgment of Mr. Justice Costello delivered the 3rd day of May 1988. Mary P. O'Donoghue Registrar
Housing Act, 1966- Mandatory Injunction - Plaintiffs, members of travellers community, living in caravans on unauthorised sites - whether defendant corporation under a statutory duty to provide serviced sites for plaintiffs - whether the Minister for the Environment under a statutory duty to provide such sites - "Building Programme" - Duty of corporation to review its "Building Programme" so as to include proposals for provision of serviced sites.
Constitution û Arts. 40(3) (2) and 41(2) - Whether State under a constitutional duty to provide serviced sites for plaintiffs - whether court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages for breach of the constitutional duty alleged.
The plaintiffs are members of the traveller community residing in caravans on unofficial sites in the City of Limerick. They and their children (of which there are 150 under the age of 16) live in conditions of great poverty and deprivation. They have no running water or toilet facilities; no hard surface on which to place their caravans; no means for storing their domestic refuse and no service for its collection. They are the persons referred to by the City Manager in a report to the City Council of the 4th December 1987 "as living in totally unacceptable conditions without basic facilities".
The plaintiffs' wants are comparatively modest. They do not demand that they be rehoused by the Corporation; what they need are serviced halting sites, that is, sites with hard surfaces on which their caravans could be placed, toilet facilities, running water and a regular refuse collection. Their principal claim is for a mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to provide such sites claiming that the Corporation have a duty to do so under the Housing Act, 1966.Their second principal claim is that the State should pay them damages for the past suffering, inconvenience and mental distress which they have undergone, a claim based on an allegation that the conditions which they have been required to endure amounted to a breach of their constitutional rights.
The plaintiffs are, as I have said, travellers. It is accepted by all the parties to these proceedings that this is an identifiable group in Irish society and for the purposes of these proceedings I will use the phrase as it was defined in the Report of the Travelling People Review Body of February, 1983 in which (at paragraph 1.6) members of the traveller community are described as
"an identifiable group of people, identified both by themselves and by other members of the community (referred to for convenience as the "settled community") as people with their own distinctive life style, traditionally of a nomadic nature but not now...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
T.D. and Others v Minister for Education
...V IRELAND 1996 3 IR 100 FEENEY V MIN FOR FINANCE 1986 ILRM 164 RIORDAN V AN TAOISEACH 2000 4 IR 542 O'REILLY V LIMERICK CORPORATION 1989 ILRM 181 REDLAND BRICKS LTD V MORRIS 1970 AC 652 SHARPE V HARRISON 1922 1 CH 502 RYAN V MUTUAL TONTINE ASSOCIATION 1893 1 CH 116 SOCIETY FOR THE PROT......
-
MacMathúna v Attorney General
...IRELAND 1989 IR 504 SOMJEE & ANOR V MIN FOR JUSTICE 1981 ILRM 324 MADIGAN V AG 1986 ILRM 136 O'REILLY & ORS V LIMERICK CORPORATION & ORS 1989 ILRM 181 CONSTITUTION ART 41.2.2 ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 SOCIAL WELFARE (SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE) REGS 1973 SI 190/1973 FINANCE ACT ......
-
Health Services Executive v Judge White & Others (notice parties)
...70, Sinnott v Minster for Education [2001] 2 IR 549, MM v PM [1986] ILRM 515, Buckley v AG [1950] IR 67, O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation [1989] ILRM 181, TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259, FN v Minister for Education [1995] 1 IR 409, DG v Eastern Health Board [1997] 3 IR 511, DB......
-
Ahsan v Minister for Justice and Equality
...an adjudication of the fairness or otherwise of the manner in which other organs of State had administered public resources'. (O'Reilly v. Limerick Corporation [1989] ILRM 181 at p.195). The court acknowledges that it is not its function to direct the respondent as to her use of resources.......
-
Bearing a Constitutional Cross: Examining Blasphemy and the Judicial Role in Corway v. Independent Newspapers
...Constitution (Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell, 1997), at 234. See also the comments of Costello J. in O'Reilly v. Limerick Corporation [1989] ILRM 181, at 193-194 and O'Higgins C.J. in Norris v. Attorney General [1984] IR 36, at 70. 56 Damaska, "Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal......
-
Ireland and Judicial (In)dependence in Light of the Twenty-Ninth Amendment to the Constitution
...for Education [2001] IESC 101, [2001] 4 IR 259; Sinnott v Minister for Education [2001] 2 IR 545; O’Reilly v Limerick Corporation [1989] ILRM 181. 5 Twenty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judges’ Remuneration) Act, 2011. © Clare Elizabeth Kelly and Dublin University Law Society 2015] J......
-
The TD Case and Approaches to the Separation of Powers in Ireland
...function itself. He is primarily concerned about the courts usurping the role of the executive and actually exercising 3 ibid [336]. 4 [1989] ILRM 181. 5 [1974] IR 338, [362]. 6 [2001] 4 IR 259, [75]. 7 However, as Francis Kieran has pointed out, ‘in O'Donoghue [ v Minister for Health [1996......
-
I Would Do Anything for Rights - But I Won't Do That
...many children’s rights – whether under the 37 TD (n 1) 358. 38 Oran Doyle, Constitutional Equality Law (Thomson Round Hall 2004) 46. 39 [1989] ILRM 181. [2022] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 6(3) 36 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL protection, provision or participation headings – are soc......