A DUBLIN family whose eviction from their council home is to proceed despite winning a landmark High Court challenge to the procedure which led to the eviction order, have been awarded €40,000 in compensation.
The High Court had previously found that the rights of Carol and Laurence Pullen, Cloncarthy Road, Donnycarney, Dublin, had been substantially breached because Dublin City Council had failed to grant them an independent hearing into allegations against them.
Last December, Ms Justice Mary Irvine found the council had not complied with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Act 2003 in its treatment of the Pullens. However, she also noted the court could not, because of a provision of the 2003 Act, grant an injunction restraining the eviction.
The case arose after the council in 2006 obtained an eviction notice against the Pullens under section 62 of the 1966 Housing Act which allows an official to go to the District Court and say they have to be evicted for “good estate management”. The council alleged antisocial behaviour which was denied by the Pullens.
Under section 62, the official does not have to give any other reason and there is no hearing into the facts. The family had denied antisocial behaviour and claimed they were in fact victims of attacks which drove them from their home.
Yesterday, Ms Justice Irvine said she was making the award of €20,000 to each of the Pullens to compensate them “for all the effects of the wrongful breach of their convention rights” by the council.
Despite the court’s finding the order for possession of their home was obtained by a procedure which breached their ECHR rights, the council had said it did not intend to give them a new hearing into the finding of antisocial behaviour by them, she noted.
She said the court must proceed on the assumption the plaintiffs were not guilty of antisocial behaviour as that finding was made in breach of their rights.
She further noted the council had said the court should proceed on the basis the Pullens will be evicted notwithstanding the court’s findings.