Kelly v Dublin City Council & Ors [2019] IESC 56 (29 May 2019)

Kelly v Dublin City Council & Ors [2019] IESC 56 (29 May 2019)

The Supreme Court held that Mr. Kelly failed to establish the premises as his 'home' for Article 8 purposes and had no lawful entitlement to occupy. The Council's invocation of s. 20 was not inconsistent with fair procedures or constitutional justice given the facts and Mr. Kelly's deception. No breach of procedural fairness occurred.

Citation
[2019] IESC 56
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Mark Kelly; First Named Respondent/appellant: Dublin City Council; Second Named Respondent: Ireland; Third Named Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Procedures, Eviction, Anti Social Behaviour, Succession to Tenancy, Article 8 ECHR, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Housing Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Fair Procedures Eviction Anti Social Behaviour Succession to Tenancy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Kelly

Applicant/respondent

Dublin City Council

First Named Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Second Named Respondent

The Attorney General

Third Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had rights in the premises despite lack of lawful entitlement
  2. 2 Whether fair procedures and constitutional justice were breached in invoking s. 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997
  3. 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR rights were engaged

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that Mr. Kelly failed to establish the premises as his 'home' for Article 8 purposes and had no lawful entitlement to occupy. The Council's invocation of s. 20 was not inconsistent with fair procedures or constitutional justice given the facts and Mr. Kelly's deception. No breach of procedural fairness occurred.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No breach of fair procedures or constitutional justice found
  • High Court orders quashing Council's decision overturned