H233
Judgment Title: Edward Lattimore v Dublin City Council Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 233 High Court Record Number: 2013 530 JR Date of Delivery: 09/05/2014 Court: High Court Composition of Court: Judgment by: O'Neill J. Status of Judgment: Approved |
Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 233 THE HIGH COURT [2013 No. 530 J.R.] BETWEEN EDWARD LATTIMORE APPLICANT AND
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL RESPONDENT JUDGMENT of O’Neill J. delivered on the 9th day of May 2014 1. The applicant seeks an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent dated 23rd April 2013, to refuse to permit the applicant to succeed to the tenancy of a property at 21, Ennis Grove, Irishtown, Dublin 4. A further order is sought quashing the decision of the respondent of 1st July 2013, to refuse to provide the applicant with an independent review of the proportionality of the decision dated 23rd April 2013. The applicant contends that the respondent has acted in breach of s. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (‘the Act of 2003’), and that his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 40.5 of the Constitution have been infringed. The applicant is seeking an independent assessment of the proportionality of the decision to refuse him to continue in the tenancy at 21, Ennis Grove, while the respondent contends that it has no statutory obligation or authority to provide for such a review. Background 3. The applicant’s sister, with whom he resided at the property, suffered from an intellectual disability and spent a considerable amount of time throughout her life in a residential care centre. The applicant avers that he returned to Ireland out of concern for his sister as he believed she would have encountered considerable difficulties living alone and managing her financial and household responsibilities. The applicant states that he was primarily responsible for managing the household finances during the period from his return to Ireland in 1991 to 10th September 2012, when his sister died. An account statement was exhibited which shows that the applicant managed the household finances diligently and rarely allowed the account fall into arrears and never for an amount of more than €50. 4. Following the death of his sister, the applicant completed an application for succession to the tenancy on 5th December 2012. By letter dated 7th March 2013, the applicant was informed that his application had been considered “having regard to the requirements as set out in the current Allocations Scheme. The Scheme is mandated by Section 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and is adopted by the elected members of Dublin City Council.” While the applicant satisfied the requirement that he must be resident or on the rent account for a period of five years immediately prior to the death of the tenant, it was decided that “a three bedroom dwelling is not considered appropriate for the needs of a single person” and an alternative one bedroom property would be sourced. On 21st March 2013, the applicant replied to this letter informing the respondent that he had always understood that he was a joint tenant of the property and that for the last number of years he had been responsible for managing the household finances. He sought a review of the decision of 7th March 2013, and also enclosed a letter from his General Practitioner, Dr. John Ryan. 5. Dr. Ryan’s letter states that the applicant suffers from “multiple medical problems including, Prostatic Cancer, Colon Polyps, Impaired Fasting Glycemia, Hypertension, Gout, Chronic Pancreatitis.” He also states that the applicant suffers from anxiety and depression and that “the news that he is to be removed from his home has caused him acute anxiety and he is unable to sleep or eat.” Dr. Ryan states that the applicant has a strong support network nearby and that he has “no doubt that if he was moved from the house that his health would seriously decline.” It was submitted that the applicant relies heavily on the support provided by his next door neighbours, his brother who lives approximately 400m away, and other close friends who live nearby. 6. By letter dated 23rd April 2013, the applicant was informed by Ms. Teresa Conlon, Allocations Officer for the respondent, that following a review of his application, having regard to the requirement of the Allocations Scheme, it was decided that the refusal of his application to continue residing at 21, Ennis Grove was “a correct and valid decision of the Council, and your appeal is therefore unsuccessful”. It was determined that “a three bedroom dwelling is not appropriate to the needs of a single person” and that alternative one bedroom accommodation would be sourced. On 8th May 2013, the applicant was informed that “the Council are prepared to make you an offer of tenancy in accordance with the Allocations Scheme and appropriate to the needs of a single person”. The respondent states that this alternative property is approximately 850 metres away from the house at Ennis Grove and that it is in a complex specifically for older persons where there is support available. The applicant’s brother also resides at this complex. However, the applicant says that his brother is also in very poor health and would not be in a position to provide any day-today support. The applicant was advised that failure to accept this offer within two weeks may result in serving a ‘Notice to Quit’ and ‘Demand for Possession’ of the property at Ennis Grove. 7. On 15th May 2013, the applicant’s solicitor replied to Ms Conlon’s letter stating that pursuant to s. 3 of the 2003 Act, the respondent is required to act in a manner compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and that the applicant’s rights under Article 8 would be infringed by compelling him to move from his home. It was further stated that this decision should be made by an independent decision maker and an independent review of the proportionality of the respondent’s decision was sought. Mr Terence O’Keeffe, Law Agent for the respondent, replied on 1st July 2013, stating that such a procedure is arguably ultra vires. He reiterated that it was the respondent’s view that the house at Ennis Grove is “greatly in excess of [the applicant’s] housing needs” and that it is “grossly unfair to other applicants who have complied with the statutory requirements”. Following the respondent’s failure to arrange for an independent review of the decision, judicial review proceedings were commenced and leave was granted by Peart J. on 15th July 2013. Statutory Framework
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
(a) households assessed under section 20 as being qualified for social housing support, and (b) (b) households, in receipt of social housing support, that have applied to the housing authority to transfer to another dwelling or to purchase a dwelling under Part 3 and the housing authority consents to the transfer, or purchase, as the case may be.
On the death or departure of both parents the tenancy will normally be given to a son or daughter, irrespective of number in the household, provided that he/she has been living in the dwelling for at least two years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant. However, departure of the tenant by way of purchasing or providing own accommodation will not, generally, be grounds for a child over 18 years to remain in the dwelling and apply for succession. Each case will be examined on its merits and where there is more than one member of the household remaining in the dwelling, the tenancy will normally be given to the member who, in the opinion of the Manager, is most likely to keep the household harmoniously together. A person other than a spouse, partner, son or daughter who has resided in the dwelling for at least five years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant may be allowed to succeed where there is no spouse, partner, son or daughter eligible to succeed and where the dwelling size is appropriate to his/her needs. A spouse, partner, son or daughter who was residing at the date of death / departure of the tenant and who has not resided for the full two years prior to the death or departure of the tenant but has a total of ten years aggregate residence in the dwelling in the previous fifteen years and is in need of housing accommodation and is unable to provide accommodation from his/her own resources may be considered to succeed to the tenancy where the dwelling size is appropriate to his/her needs. In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant / applicants have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period / periods as outlined above. Generally no application will be considered where this condition is not complied with.” 12. The applicant submits that the decision of the respondent dated 23rd April 2013, was irrational, unreasonable, and disproportionate having regard to the applicant’s right to respect for private life and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was submitted that the respondent failed to act in accordance with its obligations under s. 3 of the 2003 Act, to act in a manner compatible with the Convention. It was further submitted that the said decision was disproportionate, having regard to the applicant’s right to inviolability of the dwelling under Article 40.5 of the Constitution. It was argued that in arriving at its decision, the respondent applied a fixed and inflexible policy which prevented the respondent from giving full consideration to the particular facts and merits of the applicant’s case and therefore unnecessarily fettered the respondent’s discretion. 13. It was submitted that a long line of jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights supports the proposition that the property in question in these proceedings is undoubtedly the applicant’s home, and as such, his rights under Article 8 are engaged. In Orlic v Croatia (Application No. 48833/07), the court considered whether or not the residence in question came within the concept of a ‘home’ under the convention:
55. As to the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant and his family had lived in the flat in question between November 1991 and 28 October 2004 when they were evicted. Thus, at the time when the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home occurred, he had lived in the flat in question with his family. Having regard to the factual circumstances outlined above, the Court finds that the applicant had sufficient and continuing links with the flat at issue for it to be considered his “home” for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, despite the fact that according to the national courts’ findings he had no legal basis for occupying it.” 15. It was contended that any interference with this right requires an independent determination of the proportionality of such interference and that the Council have failed to provide this to the applicant, thereby violating Article 8. In McCann v. United Kingdom [2008] 47 EHRR 40, it was held that:
18. This view was reiterated in Buckland v. The United Kingdom [2013] 56 EHRR, which also repeated that in order for interference to be necessary in a democratic society, the decision must answer a “pressing social need” and be “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued”. The Court in that case went on to state that the procedural safeguards required by Article 8 had not been met in circumstances where “it was not possible to challenge the decision to seek a possession Order on the basis of the alleged disproportionality of that decision in light of personal circumstances.” The United Kingdom Supreme Court expressed a similar view of the requisite procedural safeguards for compliance with Article 8 in Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104, where it was held that:
In this connection the Court reiterates that any person at risk of an interference with her right to home should in principle be able to have the proportionality and reasonableness of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding that, under domestic law, he or she has no right to occupy a flat.”
Where any one or more of these requirements, when considered collectively and having regard to the margin of appreciation, is absent, it may be considered that the safeguards necessarily attendant on Article 8 for the purposes of its vindication have not been satisfied. A violation in such circumstances may follow. The suggested procedural safeguard as applying in this jurisdiction is the remedy of judicial review; as above-established, s. 62(3) cannot be relied upon in this regard. Whilst, in a great number of cases judicial review will be a sufficient and appropriate remedy, by which issues between public landlords and their tenants, arising out of that relationship, can be resolved, there will undoubtedly be some rare cases in which such remedy will not be suitable. This results from the nature and scope of judicial review and, in particular, from the limitation of its operation relative to the factual dispute.” 25. Counsel for the applicant states that in Webster v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2013] IEHC 119, Hedigan J. sought to synthesise the decision in Donegan with more recent European jurisprudence as outlined above. Hedigan J. found that there was no issue of proportionality in Webster but stated:
27. Counsel for the applicant submits that the most appropriate resolution in these proceedings would be to grant the relief sought and allow the respondent to provide for an independent assessment of proportionality. It was submitted that if there is some statutory bar to such a course of action being adopted by the respondent, which is not accepted, then there is authority which suggests that this Court can carry out an assessment of proportionality, going beyond the more traditional constraints in judicial review proceedings. In McSorley v The Minister for Education and Skills [2012] IEHC 201, Hedigan J. reiterated the role of this Court in judicial review proceedings as set out by Denham J. in Meadows v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3 as follows:
(ii) It is not an appeal on the merits. (iii) The onus of proof rests upon the applicant at all times. (iv) In considering the test for reasonableness, the basic issue to determine is whether the decision is fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense. (v) The nature of the decision and the decision maker being reviewed is relevant to the application of the test. (vi) Where the legislature has placed decisions requiring special knowledge, skill, or competence, for example as under the Planning Acts, with a skilled decision maker, the Court should be slow to intervene in the technical area. (vii) The Court should have regard to what Henchy J. in The State (Keegan) v. Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal, referred to as the ‘implied constitutional limitation of jurisdiction’ in all decision-making which affects rights. Any effect on rights should be within constitutional limitations and should be proportionate to the objective to be achieved. If the effect is disproportionate it would justify the court setting aside the decision.”
Respondent’s Submissions
Having taken your application and all of the forgoing circumstances into consideration and having regard to the requirements of the Allocations Scheme, I must inform you that the refusal of your application for succession of 21 Ennis Grove and the approval of your succession to a dwelling appropriate to your needs was a correct and valid decision of the Council . . . ”
‘Counsel for the Notice Party also submitted that where the evidence as to whether a statutory body entrusted by the legislator with a particular function did not exercise its statutory duties, there is presumption of validity in favour of the decision under attack … Finlay P. … in re Comhltas Ceolteorí Éireann (High Court unreported 14th December, 1977)… said (at pages. 3-4 of the transcript of his Judgment): ‘A planning authority is a public authority with a decision making capacity acting in accordance with statutory powers and duties. In my view, there is rebuttable presumption that its acts are valid’. It appears to me that this submission… is well-founded. The onus of prove [sic] in establishing that An Bord Pleanála did not consider the question of environmental impact assessment… and thereby rebutting the presumption of validity of the Bord’s decision, lies squarely on the Applicant. That burden of proof, it seems to me, has not been fully discharged. In addition, the Court has discretion in regard to Orders sought by way of judicial review. In this case, the Bord had before it ample material on which to make its decision. The report of the inspector raises and refers to many of the matters which would also be covered in a environmental impact assessment. Finally, no participant in the oral hearing suggested that an environmental impact assessment was required. … Bearing all these matters in mind I would be reluctant to exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicant on this point’.”
The taxpaying public are entitled to suppose that their applications will be dealt with by the Council in accordance with law and not by reference to non-statutory schemes which the Council has itself been pleased to create.”
89. An integral requirement in the performance of this responsibility is the establishment of what is termed, a "Scheme of Letting Priorities", as required by s. 60 of the Act of 1966. Under this provision, such a Scheme, which must be regularly reviewed, contains the rules by which the housing needs of all persons within its functional area, to whom it owes a responsibility, are assessed and prioritised. Having completed this exercise, its housing stock is then distributed and allocated according to the Scheme. . . ”
38. Counsel for the respondent submitted that much of the European Court’s jurisprudence as relied upon by the applicant is irrelevant, because in cases such as Yordanova, Bjedov, and Buckland, the applicants were to be deprived of their home, whereas in this case, the applicant is simply being moved to alternative, more suitable accommodation, as opposed to being deprived of his home. It was submitted that the applicant has conflated eviction with the concept of allocation. In Orlic, the Court stated that:
39. The respondent contended that they have not fallen foul of the requirements of Article 8 as the decision in this case was made by an impartial body and because that decision is subject to judicial review proceedings. In Bryan v. United Kingdom it was held that:
40. It is also denied that the respondent’s decision making process failed to have regard to the applicant’s fundamental rights. In Rawson v. the Minister for Defence [2012] IESC 26, Clarke J. set out the guidelines which must be met to ensure that a decision made by a public body was lawful and it is submitted that the respondent meets these criteria:
41. In these proceedings, the applicant seeks to have quashed two decisions of the respondent, the first being the decision communicated by the letter of 23rd April 2013, which, after a review, upheld the earlier decision of 7th March 2013, to refuse the applicant succession to the tenancy in 21, Ennis Grove, but which allowed him, or allocated to him, a tenancy in a one-bedroom dwelling. The second decision impugned is that communicated by a letter of 7th July 2013, refusing an independent review of the foregoing decision made on 23rd April 2013. Before proceeding into the merits of this dispute, I should deal with the preliminary objection of the respondent on the grounds of delay. I am quite satisfied that the applicant, having been disappointed by the decision of 23rd April 2013, was entitled, having regard to his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights discussed above, to have sought from the respondent an independent review of the proportionality of the decision made on 23rd April 2013. That request was finally refused by the letter of 7th July 2013, and these judicial review proceedings were launched on 15th July 2013, expeditiously and within three months of the refusal of 7th July 2013. I am quite satisfied that, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the applicant in initiating these proceedings and that objection by the respondent fails. 42. An aspect of this case which presents no difficulty are the relevant facts which are not in dispute. The applicant has had a long history of association with 21, Ennis Grove, going back to 1956, when he was 12 years of age and his family took occupation of this 3-bedroomed house, in which his parents were the tenants. In due course, after the death of his father, his mother became the tenant until her death in 1989. In the meantime, the applicant had been in the United Kingdom from 1962. After the death of his mother, his sister, Cassandra, succeeded to the tenancy in 1990, and continued to be the tenant until her death in 2012. The applicant returned from the United Kingdom and took up occupation in 1991, and from then on, was entered on the rent account as an occupant of the dwelling. Over those years, the uncontested evidence in these proceedings and in the process before the Allocations Officer, Ms. Conlon, was to the effect that the applicant’s sister was a person with disabilities and it fell to the applicant to look after the tenancy, including ensuring the payment of the rent from 1991 onwards. 43. The applicant is now approaching 70 years of age, and according to the evidence from his GP supplied in the process before the Allocations Officer and exhibited in these proceedings, he is in poor health, suffering from a variety of significant ailments. The opinion of his GP is that his mental and physical health will be seriously affected if he is compelled to leave his home at 21, Ennis Grove. 44. On the other hand, there are the undisputed facts put forward by the respondent, namely, that within the area where this house is located, there are in excess of 1,400 persons eligible for and seeking accommodation from the respondent as the local housing authority, of whom 134 are seeking a 3-bedroomed house. 45. There can be no doubt that the officials of the respondent, namely, Mr. Bregazzi, in the first instance, and Ms. Conlon, who conducted the review, resulting in her decision of 23rd April 2013, had a difficult decision to make. On the one hand, there were powerful factors underpinning the applicant’s claim to remain on in this 3-bedroomed house. On the other hand, in staying on in this house, which had more accommodation than he needed, a family needing 3-bedroom accommodation would have to be denied that opportunity for as long as the applicant remained in occupation of this house. 46. Notwithstanding the fact that the respondent offered the applicant a one-bedroom flat in Shepherd’s Bush Court, which is in reasonably close proximity to 21, Ennis Grove, I have no doubt that 21, Ennis Grove has been, at all material times, the applicant’s “home” within the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, there was no serious contest on this issue in the proceedings. Again, notwithstanding the offer of new and suitable accommodation to the applicant, the refusal of the tenancy in 21, Ennis Grove to him, because of the fact that this house was his home for such a long time, that refusal was, in my opinion, an “interference” with the applicant’s rights in respect of 21, Ennis Grove as his home, as envisaged by Article 8 of the Convention and the jurisprudence deriving therefrom. 47. What this has meant was that the applicant was entitled, by virtue of the judgments of the ECHR in the cases of McCann v. the United Kingdom, Yordanova v. Bulgaria, Buckland v. the United Kingdom and Djedov v. Croatia, to have the proportionality of that decision determined by an independent Tribunal in light of the relevant principles under Article 8. The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in the case of Manchester City Council v. Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104, having reviewed the jurisprudence of the ECHR, concluded that the ECHR case law established that “any person at risk of being dispossessed of his home at the suit of a local authority should, in principle, have the right to raise the question of the proportionality of the measure and to have it determined by an independent Tribunal in light of Article 8, even if his right of occupation under domestic law has come to an end”. 48. The Supreme Court, in the cases of Donegan and Gallagher v. Dublin City Council, whilst, in those cases, dealing with disputed questions of facts, nonetheless per the judgment of McKechnie J. in summarising the requisites of compliance with Article 8, included having the issue considered against the measure to determine its proportionality. 49. I am quite satisfied that the overwhelming weight of the jurisprudence emanating from the ECHR and from the United Kingdom Supreme Court and our Supreme Court, albeit, on an obiter basis, requires that where a person is to be deprived of their home, within the meaning of Article 8, they are entitled to have the proportionality of that decision determined by an independent Tribunal. In the case of Webster v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2013] IEHC 190, Hedigan J. anticipated the establishment of such a proposition where he said:
51. Thus, Ms. Conlon had before her all of the relevant material for the purposes of making a reasonable and proportionate decision and there is no evidence of her decision being in way contaminated by any irrelevant or impermissible material. 52. Having regard to the weighty factors favouring either potential choice, and having regard to the necessity to balance these and to then make the difficult decision to either allow or refuse succession to the tenancy in 21, Ennis Grove to the applicant, it cannot, in my view, be said that in making the choice that she made, that Ms. Conlon did anything other than scrupulously observe the principle of proportionality. 53. That, notwithstanding, does not answer the question of whether or not the exercise that she undertook in reviewing the decision made by Mr. Bregazzi, could be said to have about it the necessary character of independence required as a safeguard by Article 8. In my view, the clear thrust of all of the jurisprudence establishes that a housing authority, in these circumstances, cannot be the “independent Tribunal” for the purpose of making a determination on the proportionality issue in these circumstances. Thus, while, in my opinion, Ms. Conlon carried out her task well, the simple reality is that she did not have or should not have had jurisdiction in the first place to embark upon this task. That should have been left to another body, independent of the respondent. 54. Against this, the respondent says that the Housing Acts, construed in accordance with s. 2 of the Act of 2003, do not permit the respondent to delegate to any Tribunal, independent of it, the function of determining any question with regard to the allocation of housing in accordance with the Allocation Scheme. If the respondent was correct in this submission, it might be said that this could lead to a declaration of incompatibility between relevant parts of the Housing Acts and Article 8 of the Convention. However, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Meadows case, in circumstances where no other independent Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine the issue of proportionality in these kind of circumstances, this Court, on a judicial review application, must undertake that exercise. The necessary consequence of this Court exercising that jurisdiction is that, without any doubt, the procedural safeguards required under Article 8 of the Convention are in place and there cannot be said to be a breach of Article 8 on that ground, or, furthermore, on the ground specifically raised in these proceedings that the review carried out by Ms. Conlon was not an independent review, nor did the refusal by the respondent in the letter of 7th July 2013, of an independent review, breach Article 8. 55. In light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Meadows, it now falls to me to determine the issue of proportionality as that was discussed in the judgment in the Meadows case and also by Hedigan J. in McSorley v. The Minister for Education and Skills [2012] IEHC 201. 56. In that context, it would seem to me that what I have to do, having regard to what has been described in the words of Henchy J. as the “implied constitutional limitation of jurisdiction”, is to consider whether or not the decision made in this case by Ms. Conlon was proportionate to the objective to be achieved, and if disproportionate, to set it aside. 57. All of the relevant material was before Ms. Conlon and, I am satisfied, considered by her, and in the balancing exercise she was required to do, she had to make a decision which was either favourable to the applicant or adverse to him. There was no middle ground, although in this context, the fact that a one-bedroom apartment was offered to the applicant, in close proximity to 21, Ennis Grove, ensured that in the decisions that were made, the respondent was fulfilling its obligation to the applicant to provide him with suitable housing, whilst at the same time, accommodating the needs of a family requiring a 3-bedroomed house. I am quite satisfied that the decision that was made by Ms. Conlon, as reflected in her letter of 23rd April 2013, was not in any sense disproportionate. I am also satisfied that the correct application of the proportionality principle in this case also means that there has been no breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 40.5 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. 58. In these circumstances, therefore, I will not interfere with Ms. Conlon’s decision and I must refuse the relief which is sought in these judicial review proceedings.
|