Clare Naughton is employed at Northside Community Law Centre and is a solicitor practising in the areas of Housing and Community Care. She is also a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society of Ireland.
On 9 May 2014 Justice O’Neill in the High Court issued his judgment in the case of Lattimore v Dublin City Council. This decision was recently reported on in the PILA Bulletin – click here to read more.
Edward Lattimore contacted Northside Community Law Centre in early 2013 following a Dublin City Council decision granting him the right to succeed to a tenancy to a one bedroomed home, but not to a tenancy which would allow him to remain in his three bedroomed family home of over 60 years. Mr. Lattimore’s sister had been the sole tenant since 1990. Mr. Lattimore returned to the family home in 1991 and resided there on notice to, and with the consent of, Dublin City Council until the death of his sister in 2012. Mr. Lattimore, now aged 70 years old, managed the household and provided care to his sister during her lifetime. Following his application to succeed to the tenancy, Mr. Lattimore was offered a one bedroomed home by Dublin City Council and was advised that a notice to quit would follow. There was no suggestion that Mr. Lattimore had breached the terms of the tenancy agreement. The rent account was paid in advance.
Northside Community Law Centre issued Judicial Review proceedings on behalf of Mr. Lattimore challenging the actions of Dublin City Council. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Lattimore, Mr. Feichin McDonagh SC and Mr. Alan Brady BL, argued that the actions of Dublin City Council to interfere in his private and family rights as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached by the failure of Dublin City Council to afford Mr. Lattimore an independent tribunal to assess the proportionality of their decision.
O’Neill J. agreed that Mr. Lattimore is entitled to an independent enquiry and whilst Ms. Conlon within Dublin City Council had been proportional in her decision the review itself could not be independent. O’Neill J. stated,
‘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.’
He noted the submissions of Dublin City Council that the Council do not have the necessary power to establish an independent tribunal. Whilst he did not agree or disagree with this position, the High Court Judge stated,
‘[I]n 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.’
He went on to explain that the impact of him conducting an independent tribunal means that there is no breach of Mr. Lattimore’s rights as safeguarded by Article 8.
In his judgment, O’Neill J. immediately proceeded to be the independent tribunal and in balancing the needs and position of Mr. Lattimore against the Council meeting the accommodation needs of a family requiring a 3 bedroom house, the High Court Judge decided that the actions of Ms. Conlon of Dublin City Council were proportionate and refused Mr. Lattimore the reliefs sought.
In the majority of cases when a case is decided against a party, the losing party will be ordered to pay the legal costs for the successful party in the case. Legal costs are not compensation but are the legal bill or the bill for the solicitors and barristers who represented the parties. During the application for legal costs, Mr. McDonagh SC made submissions to O’Neill J. that Mr. Lattimore had no option but to bring his case to the High Court and had he not, he would not have had an independent tribunal. He submitted that had Mr. Lattimore not pre-empted the Council by issuing judicial review proceedings in advance of possession proceedings, Mr. Lattimore would have had a possible claim for damages and/or a declaration of incompatibility - the High Court Judge had accepted the legal arguments raised by Counsel on behalf of Mr. Lattimore that he is entitled to an independent tribunal. O’Neill J. ordered Dublin City Council to pay Mr. Lattimore’s legal costs.
This decision is a very important decision as it confirms that any interference in a person’s right to their home requires an independent tribunal. A local authority cannot be independent in housing cases.