Moore -v- Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IESC 70 (13 December 2016)

Moore -v- Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IESC 70 (13 December 2016)

The eviction of Ms. Moore was unlawful because the warrant for possession was issued outside the statutory six-month period without the required application on notice, depriving her of the opportunity to be heard as mandated by law. This was a fundamental breach of fair process and the rule of law, and no significant countervailing factor justified the High Court's refusal to grant relief. The Supreme Court held that Ms. Moore is entitled to declaratory relief and damages in principle.

Citation
[2016] IESC 70
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Moore; Applicant/appellant: Ann Moore; Respondent: Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Eviction, Judicial Review, Due Process, Article 8 ECHR, District Court Procedure, Unlawful Warrants, Damages
Administrative Law Housing Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Eviction Judicial Review Due Process Article 8 ECHR +3 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Moore

Applicant

Ann Moore

Applicant/appellant

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing relief where eviction was effected on foot of an unlawful warrant for possession
  2. 2 Whether deprivation of notice and opportunity to be heard rendered the eviction unlawful
  3. 3 Appropriate relief where a party is evicted on foot of an invalid warrant

Ratio Decidendi

The eviction of Ms. Moore was unlawful because the warrant for possession was issued outside the statutory six-month period without the required application on notice, depriving her of the opportunity to be heard as mandated by law. This was a fundamental breach of fair process and the rule of law, and no significant countervailing factor justified the High Court's refusal to grant relief. The Supreme Court held that Ms. Moore is entitled to declaratory relief and damages in principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that the eviction of Ms. Moore on 14 May 2010 was unlawful
  • Determination that Ms. Moore is entitled to damages in principle