Donegan v Dublin City Council & anor and Dublin City Council v Gallagher [2012] IESC 18 (27 February 2012)

Donegan v Dublin City Council & anor and Dublin City Council v Gallagher [2012] IESC 18 (27 February 2012)

Section 62(3) of the Housing Act 1966 is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it does not provide for adequate procedural safeguards, such as an independent review of the proportionality of eviction, particularly where there are disputes of fact. Judicial review is not a sufficient remedy in such cases. The High Court was correct to make a declaration of incompatibility in Donegan but erred in Gallagher, where no relevant factual dispute existed to engage Article 8 procedural requirements.

Citation
[2012] IESC 18
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Anthony Donegan; Defendant/complainant: Dublin City Council; Defendants/appellants/notice Party/appellant: Ireland and the Attorney General; Defendant: Liam Gallagher
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (joined Cases: Plenary Summons and Case Stated) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decisions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in Donegan; appeal allowed in Gallagher.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Procedural Safeguards, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home), Judicial Review, Declaration of Incompatibility, Proportionality, Fair Procedures
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Housing Law Administrative Law Eviction Procedural Safeguards Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Home) Judicial Review +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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Donegan

Plaintiff/respondent

Dublin City Council

Defendant/complainant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/appellants/notice Party/appellant

Liam Gallagher

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (joined Cases: Plenary Summons and Case Stated) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 62(3) of the Housing Act 1966 is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to lack of procedural safeguards in eviction proceedings
  2. 2 Whether judicial review constitutes an adequate procedural safeguard for tenants facing eviction by a local authority
  3. 3 Whether a declaration of incompatibility should be made under section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

Section 62(3) of the Housing Act 1966 is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it does not provide for adequate procedural safeguards, such as an independent review of the proportionality of eviction, particularly where there are disputes of fact. Judicial review is not a sufficient remedy in such cases. The High Court was correct to make a declaration of incompatibility in Donegan but erred in Gallagher, where no relevant factual dispute existed to engage Article 8 procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in Donegan; appeal allowed in Gallagher.

Orders

  • Declaration of incompatibility under section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 affirmed in Donegan.
  • Declaration of incompatibility set aside in Gallagher.