JR180 Application for Judicial review and in the matter of a decision of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Colton J |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 48 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 23 June 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 48
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL11877
ICOS No: 21/063477/01
Delivered: 23/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JR 180
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND
HOUSING EXECUTIVE
________
Ms Fiona Doherty QC with Mrs Orla Gallagher (instructed by KRW Law)
for the Applicant
Mr Aidan Sands (instructed by NIHE Legal Services) for the Respondent
________
COLTON J
Introduction
[1] This is the third in a series of judicial reviews which relates to decisions taken
by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in respect of the applicant’s application
under Article 29 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and the Scheme for
the Purchase of Evacuated Dwellings (“SPED”).
[2] Because of attacks on the applicant’s property she lives in an increased and
justified state of fear of loyalist paramilitaries. As a result she has been granted
anonymity in these and previous proceedings.
[3] The unusual and complicated factual matrix has been set out in the court’s
judgment in the application by JR 103 (as she was then known) delivered on 2 March
2021. It was set out in that judgment in the following way:
“[3] The dispute centres on a bungalow at an address
known to the court in the Belfast area. Throughout this
judgment the bungalow will be referred to as “the
premises.”
2
[4] It is the applicant’s evidence that she purchased
the premises in September 2007 after returning to
Northern Ireland in 2006 with her husband and her four
year old son. Her husband was disabled following a
brain haemorrhage and the premises were purchased due
to its wheelchair accessibility.
[5] In the course of these proceedings the applicant
has served a number of affidavits setting out her use of
the premises since its purchase. In truth the history is not
entirely clear but in short form at this stage it is sufficient
to say that it is her evidence that the premises were lived
in by the family on and off since their purchase. The
premises has been leased out to tenants for significant
periods. As a result of various attacks at the premises,
believed to be by loyalist paramilitaries, she or her family
did not feel safe there. As a consequence she has also
lived at an address in Crawfordsburn. An additional
factor was that throughout this period her husband was
in hospital for significant periods of time during which
periods the premises were rented out.
[6] It is her case that she moved back into the
premises in the summer of 2013. On 18 September 2013
there was an arson attack on the premises. Thereafter,
the premises were unoccupied. Rather than accept a cash
payment from the insurance company in relation to the
premises she avers that the family decided to rebuild the
premises as a family home. She avers that in July 2014
she attended the premises with an architect to start the
rebuild. The rebuild commenced and was completed by
the start of July 2015. Her evidence is that on 31 July 2015
she had the oil tank filled and began moving back into
the premises that day. Over the weekend of 1/2 August
2015 the hot water tank and radiators were stolen. The
premises were directly targeted and as a result she again
vacated them on 3 August 2015 to return to live in
alternative premises.
[7] Thereafter, she put the premises on the market but
efforts to sell were frustrated by ongoing acts of
intimidation by persons believed to have loyalist
paramilitary connections in the area.
To continue reading
Request your trial