BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. This is a very important but involved action concerning a large number of the so-called "travelling community" residing primarily in the former Dublin County Council administrative area. By an Order dated 22nd March, 1998, my colleague, Mr. Justice O'Donovan, said that preliminary not separate issues should be determined in the High Court prior to the determination of the many other issues raised in the proceedings.

2. That issue is as to whether the South Dublin County Council (the First named Defendant herein) is entitled to serve notice under Section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992 requiring the Plaintiffs or any of them who are living in caravans on unserviced and unauthorised sites on public land to move their caravans to Lynch's Lane halting-site. The issue came before this Court and has been very fully examined. There was evidence on affidavit and orally and a large number of photographs were also produced. There was a clear conflict between some of the photographs and indeed some of the oral and written evidence. The Court decided on its own motion and on giving one hour's notice that the Court would attend on the site.

3. The relevant section with which the Court was concerned is the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, Section 10(1):-

4. The remainder of the section deals with the enforcement of that notice and provides that failure to comply, obstruct or impede the housing authority shall be offences.

5. The Court has been referred to two cases. They were Kathleen Mongan & Martin Mongan -v- South Dublin County Council being an unreported judgment of Mr. Justice Barron, delivered on July 31, 1995 and Ward & Ors. -v- South Dublin County Council [1996] 3 IR 195 being a judgment of Laffoy J. The duty of a local authority to the travelling community was laid down in the Supreme Court decision of McDonald -v- Feely, (unreported, Supreme Court, July 23, 1980) by Chief Justice O'Higgins. Subsequently, there was a High Court decision, where someone was living on Childers Road in Limerick, which was not cited in either of the submissions which the parties made in this case rely, namely, O'Reilly -v- Limerick Corporation , [1989] I.L.R.M. 181. The other cases cited by Ms. Justice Laffoy are McNamee -v- Buncrana U.D.C, [1983] I.R. 213; [1984] 1 I.L.R.M. 77, County Meath VEC -v- Joyce, [1994] 2 I.L.R.M. 210, University of Limerick -v- Ryan (Unreported, High Court, Barron J., February 21, 1991), O'Brien -v- Wicklow County Council, (Unreported, High Court, Costello P., 10th June, 1994), Mongan -v- South Dublin County Council, (Unreported, High Court, Barron J., July 31, 1995). This Courts proposes to adopt and to endorse the decision of Barron J. in University of Limerick -v- Ryan which is also adopted and endorsed by Laffoy J. in the Ward case. The relevant quotation is at page 28/30:-

6. In adopting the foregoing quotation, Laffoy J. in the Ward case says as follows at p. 201:-

7. The key question in the current case is whether the halting-site is adequate. In Mongan -v- South Dublin County Council where he is considering the level of services provided under Section 13 he states as follows at p. 2:-

8. In that case Barron J. made a declaration at p. 5 that:-

9. A very small number (less than ten) of the over fifty Defendants in the main action were involved in the present application.

10. The Court visited the site. There is a barrier about ten feet above the road surface at the entrance. The Court was informed but had no evidence that in fact the fire brigade had the key to open this barrier. The entrance to the halting-sites were reasonably clear and good although some of their access roads had potholes. Also some of the hydrants at the entrance to the sites were broken and water was escaping. Each new site had a concrete style bunker which consisted of toilet and kitchen arrangements. Some were in excellent working order and some were vandalised. Nearly all existing temporary dwellings were in good order and one or two had made an effort to place a garden with stones and flowers around the dwelling. It was argued that the place was unhygenic and unsuitably sited. On one side there was an adequate road. On the other side there was a large area used to cannibalise cars. Material to and from this area had to pass through the site and there was a perfectly adequate road leading to this site. Beyond this car graveyard was a fine array of modern privately built houses who would look out on this rather unsightly sea of human activity. All these new houses seemed to be occupied.

11. On one side of the halting site was another open area together with a few derelict cars. On the other side there were halting sites which had been vandalised and were now in disarray. There was a wall separating this area from the rest of the camping site but undoubtedly it was readily accessible. There were undoubtedly broken bunkers here with damaged toilets and basins and a great deal of rubble. However this is about to be transformed into a roadway. It is also close to the aforementioned private housing. I know rats were seen or signs of them and undoubtedly they could be anticipated in an area of this sort. However, there is in force a pest control system. Some of their devices were vandalised. The local authority has of course a duty to maintain the water supply and to control any infestation of vermin.

12. One expert was strident in denouncing the user of outside toilets in this day and age. However, a number of the mobile homes do have internal toilet facilities. Also halting-sites throughout the world for caravans or car-mobiles do have external toilets and showers and other facilities. One has only to look at some of the facilities provided on most camping sites in this country. The law is clearly expressed by Laffoy J. in Ward -v- South Dublin County Council [1996] 3 IR 195 at page 207

13. In the present case the local authority did not indicate exactly where the Plaintiffs would be sited. Accordingly, if the Plaintiffs were put on a site where the water supplies, the toilet and other facilities had been vandalised or were not for any other reason working, the Plaintiffs might reasonably object. However, they cannot object on the grounds that they do not like the district or they do not like their neighbours or that there is going to be roadworks nearby or the presence of a business which does not create an actionable nuisance. This Court is satisfied that the few vacant halting-sites at Lynch's Lane that are not presently occupied are suitable halting-sites for the purpose of the Act. Obviously if the hydrant is not working it should be restored before they move in to it and the same applies to the other facilities. However, these sites are located basically in hygienic environs and in proper physical condition and are adequately serviced although individual sites may need regular attention to bring them up to normal and acceptable standards. Accordingly, the Court doth order that the South Dublin County Council is entitled to serve notice under Section 10 of the Housing (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1992 requiring the Plaintiffs or any of them who are living in caravans on unserviced and unauthorised sites on public lands to move their caravans to Lynch's Lane halting-site. This Order of course only relates to those presently halted within five miles of Lynch's Lane and who participated in this action.