The Irish Court of Appeal has unanimously dismissed a young woman’s appeal, effectively refusing the applicants’ request to be re-housed in a property suited to, or adapted to her particular needs, and situated within five miles of Cork University Hospital.
Ms Mulhare, the applicant, has significant needs due to cerebral palsy and is totally dependent on her mother who resides with her under a tenancy from Cork County Council. Ms Mulhare additionally has a severe on-going respiratory tract infection for which she receives regular treatment at Cork University Hospital, and from her GP who is 43kms away.
The High Court observed that the applicants’ house was not of a suitable standard to meet her level of special needs, lacking level bathroom access and the bedroom doors being of insufficient width for a wheelchair. Mould and dampness had also been identified. Reports from Ms Mulhare’s doctor and occupational therapist both expressed concerns about the unsuitability of the applicants’ residence. The respondent accepted these problems and demonstrated a willingness to carry out the necessary repairs, however the applicants sought to be re-housed within a 5 mile radius of Cork University Hospital. The Council also reported that it did not have an adequate house available, and that the location in which the applicants sought to be re-housed to was outside its functional area.
The Court of Appeal examined the statutory provisions relevant to the Council’s functions, namely sections 20 and 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. These provided that the local authority must adopt a scheme of priorities in order to determine “the order of priority to be accorded in the allocation of dwellings to households” deemed eligible. In this case the applicants were within the sixth category in the order of priorities. While the Court found that the local authority had some discretion in altering the order of priorities in exceptional circumstances, the question was whether the court interfere with the Council’s decision on this.
The Court ultimately ruled that it was of the utmost importance for the health and welfare of both applicants that they live in better conditions. However, it held that that the respondent must perform statutory functions in accordance with housing list priorities and this was not a matter for the courts to determine. The Court also found that to direct the respondent to provide accommodation within the narrow geographical radius identified by the applicants would be outside the role of the judiciary.
Click here for a copy of the judgement.
Click here for a PILA Bulletin article on the High Court case.