High Court dismisses judicial review application regarding accommodation placement for international protection applicants in Ireland.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 431

[Record No. 2025/662 JR]

BETWEEN

RUTH SEXTON, MARY BOYCE, CHRIS HARTNETT DALTON AND PAUL COLLINS

APPLICANTS

AND

MINISTER FOR CHILDREN, EQUALITY, DISABILITY, INTEGRATION AND YOUTH AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, HOME AFFAIRS AND MIGRATION RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Marguerite Bolger delivered on the 25th day of July 2025

1. This is an application for leave to seek the following reliefs by way of judicial review:

i. An Order of certiorari by way of an application for judicial review quashing the first named Respondent’s decision as stated in the briefing note dated 18th March 2025 that 98 beds will be provided for people seeking refuge in Ireland who are international protection applicants in the Merriman Hotel, Main Street, Kinvara, Co. Galway. ii. A Declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the first named Respondents decision as stated in the briefing note dated 18 th March 2025 is in breach of Article 7 of Recast Reception Conditions Directive, S.I. 270 2018 is ultra vires its authority, invalid and of no effect. iii. A Declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the first named Respondents decision as stated in the briefing note dated 18 th March 2025 is in breach of and ultra vires the Building Control Act 1990 as amended and Building Control Regulations as amended.

iv. A Declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the purported contract entered into by the first named Respondents with the Notice Party as stated in the briefing note dated 18th March 2025 is invalid and unenforceable. v. A Declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the Respondents’ decision as stated in its briefing note dated 18th March 2025 is in breach of Article 7 of S.I. 270 2018 is irrational and unreasonable. vi. A Declaration by way of an application for judicial review that the Respondent as stated in its briefing noted dated 18 th March 2025 is in breach of the Applicants’ right to be given reasons for the Respondents’ decision. vii. A stay pursuant to Order 84 rule 20(8)(b) of the Rules of the Superior Courts as amended on all actions by the Respondents in relation to the decision stated in its briefing note dated 18th March 2025 including performance of the purported contract with the Notice Party pending the determination of these proceedings or until this Honourable Court otherwise orders. viii. If necessary, an Order providing for the discovery of documentation which are or have been in the power, possession or procurement of the Respondent and which are relevant to any issue in these proceedings.

2. The applicants must satisfy the Court that they have established arguable grounds firstly, that the impugned decision is amenable to judicial review and secondly, that they will secure the reliefs they seek at trial. I have had regard to the dicta of Charleton J. in Esmé v. Minister for Justice and Law Reform [2015] IESC 26 in which he stated: “Any issue in law can be argued: but that is not the test. A point of law is only arguable within the meaning of the relevant decisions if it could, by the standards of a rational preliminary analysis, ultimately have a prospect of success. It is required for an applicant for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to demonstrate that an argument can be made which indicates that the argument is not empty. There would be no filtering process were mere arguability to be the test without, at the same time, taking into account that trivial or unstatable cases are to be excluded: the standard of the legal point must be such that, in the absence of argument to the contrary, the thrust of the argument indicates that reasonable prospects of success have been demonstrated. It is still required to be shown that a prima facie legal argument has been established. In terms of evidence, the requirement for a prima facie case is regarded as that which ‘if not balanced or outweighed by other evidence, will suffice to establish a particular contention’; Halsbury’s Laws of England (5th edition) volume 11, paragraph 767. In terms of law, the test is no different: it is a point of law which if not balanced or outweighed by other principles will suffice to establish the contention. This is the filter, which the leave application is designed to be, in order to ensure that there is sufficient reason to disrupt administrative decisions and to litigate them.”

3. For the reasons set out below, I am not satisfied that the relatively low threshold of arguable grounds has been met by the applicants in this case and I therefore refuse leave to seek the reliefs sought by way of judicial review.

The applicants

4. The four applicants are residents of Kinvara, County Galway. Two of them are proprietors of public houses on the village's main street. The other two are former customers of the Merriman Hotel before it closed as a hotel in 2019 in order to accommodate applicants for international protection. One of the applicants is the parent of a secondary school student who is attending a local school and they assert that the school is currently full.

Briefing note

5. On 19 March 2025, a meeting of Kinvara Community Council was given a briefing note dated 18 March 2025. The reliefs sought from (i) to (vii) all refer to that briefing note and the applicants seek to challenge the decision set out in that briefing note.

6. Counsel for the applicants relied on the following extract from the briefing note as evidencing the impugned decision: “Update in relation to the Merriman Hotel, Main Street, Kinvara, Co. Galway:

98 beds will be provided for people seeking refuge in Ireland who are international protection applicants in the Merriman Hotel, Main Street, Kinvara, Co. Galway.

• All statutory requirements relating to the establishment and management of emergency accommodation are being met by the service provider, including health and safety, fire, building regulations and other requirements.

• The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth will manage the arrival of people into this centre.

• The contract with this centre has been signed for a period of two years.

• The Q&A section below will provide answers to a wide range of questions.”

7. Thereafter the questions and responses at section A set out 14 questions and answers over four pages including at question 6: “6. Is the building fire cert in place?

• A valid fire cert is in place and has been provided to the Department. All supporting fire and insurance documentation has been received.”

8. There then follows a section B which sets out the legislative basis for what it referred to as the government being “legally required to provide accommodation to people applying for international protection who seek it”. It then sets out ten bullet points over two pages headed "Context" which identifies the challenges currently faced by the State in accommodating people seeking international protection. Section C gives five separate rows of figures of persons in Ireland currently seeking international protection and persons fleeing the war in Ukraine.

Previous designation of the Merriman Hotel

9. The amended statement of grounds pleads, as part of the facts on which the applicants rely, at para. 1.6 that: “The Merriman Hotel has been used to accommodate asylum seekers since 2019 although the Notice Party represented to Joe Byrne the locally elected member of Galway County Council at the time that it was a temporary measure in an emergency to accommodate approximately 6 families. The Merriman Hotel has not been available to accommodate tourists, hold functions or for use by Kinvara Residents since then, however, the people of Kinvara have welcomed the people accommodated in the Merriman Hotel and assisted them integrate into the community. The Merriman Hotel is currently used to accommodate approximately

50 Ukrainian people.” The amended statement of grounds goes on to plead at para. 2.2(vi) under the heading "Ultra Vires Regulation 7 of S.I. 230 of 2018", that the economy of Kinvara has "been effected detrimentally by the designation of the Merriman Hotel to accommodate people seeking international protection since 2019". The affidavits grounding the application refer, on a number of occasions, to the fact that the Merriman Hotel was originally used in 2019 to accommodate applicants for international protection including a number of Syrian families and more recently has been used to accommodate Ukrainians fleeing the war.

Legal ground for challenging the impugned decision

10. The applicants contend that the impugned decision, as set out in the briefing note, constitutes a decision by the Minister to designate a premises to be an accommodation centre for applicants for international protection and that any such designation therefore requires the Minister to comply with Regulation 7 of S.I. 230/2018 and any failure to do so means the designation decision has not been validly made.

11. The applicants contend that Regulation 7 was not complied with, thereby rendering the Minister’s decision ultra vires. The applicants rely on the notification made by the notice party, the owner of the Merriman Hotel, to Galway County Council of its intention to avail of the temporary change of use of the Merriman Hotel to provide facilities for international protection applicants under Class 20F, Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended by S.I. 376/2023. Counsel for the applicants referred in her oral submissions to the "application" by the notice party but it is clear that it was a notification, as is pleaded at para. 1.7 of the amended statement of grounds. The notice party’s notification was in order to comply with condition 5 of the conditions set out in S.I. 376/2023, namely that “[t]he relevant local authority must be notified of locations where change of use is taking place prior to the commencement of the development.”

12. The applicants contend that:

i) Once this notification was granted, that meant the hotel owner had engaged with the Minister to apply for its premises to be made an IPAS which then triggered an obligation on the part of the Minister to designate the premises pursuant to Regulation 7 of the 2018 Regulations. In other words, they argue that the fact of the notification renders the impugned decision set out in the briefing note a decision to designate the Merriman Hotel as an accommodation centre for applicants for international protection.

ii) The increase in the number of people to be accommodated in the Merriman Hotel from the 50 Ukrainians who had been living there to the 98 persons referred to in the briefing note also required the Minister to make a fresh

decision to designate and to comply with Regulation 7 in advance of that purported decision. iii) The new two-year contract that was entered into between the notice party and Minister for the provision of the Merriman Hotel as accommodation for applicants for international protection, also required the Minister to make a fresh decision to designate and to comply with Regulation 7 in advance of that purported decision. Neither the reliefs sought nor the amended statement of grounds refer to the triggering of a requirement to make a fresh designation under Regulation 7.

13. I pressed counsel for the applicants as to the legal basis for their proposition linking the three issues (set out at paragraph 12 above) to an obligation on the Minister to designate the Merriman Hotel in accordance with Regulation 7. Counsel repeatedly referred me to the fact of the notice parties’ Class 20F notification, the increase in the number of persons to be offered accommodation and the commencement of a new contract between the notice party and the Minister. Counsel claimed that S.I. 376/2023 in referring to “[t]emporary use by or on behalf of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to accommodate or support displaced persons or persons seeking international protection of any structure or part of a structure…” triggered a fresh requirement on the part of the Minister to designate in accordance with Regulation 7. Counsel also cited the decision of Monaghan UCD v. Alf-a-Bet Promotions Ltd. [1980] I.L.R.M. 64, which confirms the mandatory nature of a statutory requirement such as appears in Regulation 7. That decision does not support the applicants’ submission that Regulation 7 is triggered by a Class 20F notification and/or an increase in the number of persons to be offered accommodation and/or the commencement of a new contract between the notice party and the Minister.

Decision

14. The applicants challenge the decision of the Minister to make 98 beds available for applicants for international protection in the Merriman Hotel. It was not a decision to designate the Merriman Hotel as an accommodation centre for persons seeking international protection as that premises was clearly designated sometime in 2019 when, as pleaded by the applicants, applicants for international protection were first accommodated there. The impugned decision was to make accommodation for 98 persons seeking international protection available. It was not a decision to designate the premises in which that accommodation is to be made available.

15. I have not been satisfied of any arguable grounds for the applicants’ submission that the notice party’s Class 20F notification or an increase in the number of persons to be offered accommodation or the commencement of a new contract between the Minister and the notice party, triggered a requirement on the part of the Minister to make a fresh designation in accordance with Regulation 7.

16. The impugned decision did not require a designation under Regulation 7 as it was not a decision pursuant to Regulation 7. The impugned decision was not taken in pursuance of the statutory powers and/or obligations set out in Regulation 7.

17. The applicants have not satisfied me of arguable grounds that they will succeed at trial in satisfying the court that the impugned decision is amenable to judicial review. There is no arguable basis to their submissions that the Minister’s decision set out in the briefing note is amenable to judicial review and/or in breach of Regulation 7.

18. In the event that I am incorrect in my conclusions in relation to the justiciability of the impugned decision by way of judicial review and/or the application of Regulation 7 to the decision, I proceed to consider the other arguments on which the applicants sought to rely.

Unreasonable and irrational decision

19. The applicants argued that the impugned decision was irrational and unreasonable for failing to take account of the public interest and in particular for not considering the availability of educational or medical facilities in the area and for not conducting an assessment of the economic impact on local business arising from the fact that the Merriman Hotel is no longer accommodating tourists or providing a local venue for the applicants’ family events.

20. The applicants’ arguments in that regard are a reworking of the criticisms they make that the Minister failed to take account of, inter alia, the public interest as is required by Regulation 7. The applicants accept that the State has a legal obligation to provide accommodation for applicants for international protection but seem to ask the Court to prioritise their personal interests in having a hotel in their locality to accommodate tourists and provide a local venue for their family events over the State’s attempt to comply with those national, European and international obligations.

21. The applicants relied on a petition signed by a number of local residents and the online version which was signed by a number of persons residing abroad whom counsel for the applicants claimed were former residents of Kinvara. That petition confirmed the request of the signatories: “In the public interest the people of Kinvara request the Minister to revoke the decision to contract the Merriman Hotel as an IPAS centre”.

22. The applicants are free to organise a petition in accordance with the law and anyone is entitled to sign it but these petitions do not provide any evidential basis for the reliefs which are sought or identify any public interest that gives rise to a justiciable right.

23. The applicants were unable to identify any legal basis for their claimed right to have an evaluation and assessment done by the Minister of the economic impact on Kinvara of the impugned decision (which they suggested could only be done by consultation), other than relying on Regulation 7 which, for the reasons set out above, does not apply to the impugned decision.

24. If the impugned decision required a rational or reasonable basis or required reasons, they are all clearly set out in the briefing note by reference to the State’s obligation to provide accommodation for applications for international protection. The applicants accept that that obligation is owed by the State.

25. The applicants have not satisfied me of arguable grounds that they will succeed in satisfying a court at trial that the impugned decision is irrational and/or unreasonable.

Breach of the building regulations/fire safety certificate

26. The applicants contend that the fire certificate for the Merriman Hotel does not allow for accommodating 98 persons in the hotel. They rely on an email dated 18 June 2025 from the Senior Assistant Chief Fire Officer for Galway Fire Service who states:- “[T]he premises was considered to be substantially compliant to the granted fire safety certificate… The occupancy of the 1st floor (32 bedrooms) is 70 persons and the owner/operator has been instructed to not exceed this limit… The new thatch roof is scheduled to be treated with an approved fire retardant material in the coming days (weather dependent).”

27. The applicants contend that this email demonstrates that the fire safety standards and/or the Building Regulations have been breached by the impugned decision to offer accommodation to 98 persons. I note the papers do not exhibit the documentation from the applicants, if any, that gave rise to the email in response.

28. The briefing note confirms, in the answer to question 6 (set out above) that the Minister is satisfied with the fire safety certificate. Compliance with fire safety standards and building regulations is a matter between the notice party and the enforcement body for those standards and regulations, which is the local County Council. Enforcement of fire standards and the building control regulations, which the applicant has pleaded were breached by the impugned decision, is a matter for that local authority and not for the Minister. The applicants have not cited any legal authority to identify an obligation on the part of the Minister to engage with issues for which the Oireachtas has given responsibility to the local authority. If at any stage the applicants have valid concerns for the safety of persons accommodated in the Merriman Hotel, there are avenues of complaint potentially open to them, which do not include an application for leave to seek the relief sought in the within proceedings against the Minister. The applicants failed to establish arguable grounds that its concerns arising from the aforesaid email of 18 June 2025 gives it locus standi or grounds to challenge the Minister's impugned decision.

Reasons

29. The applicants contend an entitlement to be given reasons for the impugned decision and criticise the adequacy of the reasons given in the briefing note as generalised and not specific to Kinvara. In effect, their submission is part of the rights they assert to be consulted, which they source from a consideration of the public interest pursuant to Regulation 7. For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that Regulation 7 does not apply here. No authority was cited to support the applicants’ proposition that the residents of a small village are entitled to reasons for a decision to accommodate 98 applicants for international protection, by reference to the impact this may have on local business and services.

30. The applicants averred to their concerns about having a local venue for family events and to unsubstantiated concerns about the availability of school places and medical services as a result of the Minister’s decision to provide accommodation for 98 persons seeking international protection in the Merriman Hotel. In the absence of a justiciable right to be consulted or to have an evaluation or assessment done (rights which the applicants identify from the Minister’s duty in Regulation 7 to take account of the public interest), I see no legal basis for the applicants’ claims to be entitled to reasons for a decision that they say impacts on them or their business. The applicants have not established arguable grounds that they will succeed in securing the reliefs sought at trial on this basis.

Concern in relation to Ukrainian residents of Kinvara

31. The applicants aver to their concerns for the Ukrainians who had been accommodated in the Merriman Hotel for some years. No one from that Ukrainian community is an applicant or has sworn an affidavit giving evidence of any such concerns (despite the fact that a number of local residents who are not applicants have sworn affidavits in support of these proceedings). Counsel for the applicants submitted that they could rely on the fact that Kinvara is a small village where everyone knows everyone. She said the applicants’ concerns for their Ukrainian neighbours established an impact on the applicants which afforded them locus standi to challenge the impugned decision.

32. The applicants have not demonstrated any locus standi to, in effect, seek to advocate on behalf of other persons of full mind and ability who are not party to this application and have not sworn affidavits in support of this application or verifying the distress the applicants claim was caused to those other persons by the decision. The applicants have not established arguable grounds for any entitlement to rely on these concerns at trial.

33. The first named applicant also sought to rely on difficulties they say they witnessed in their public house when unidentified third parties are alleged to have threatened criminal damage to the Merriman Hotel. She avers to being concerned about unknown persons who are not locals making remarks in her bar about lighting matches to solve the issues of the Merriman Hotel being designated an IPAS centre. She says she and other residents are concerned that instances of public disorder and disturbance as had been witnessed in other towns and villages and O’Connell Street in Dublin could become an issue in their peaceful village. She says this was a further reason why she agreed to take the within proceedings because she believes that taking the legal route will prevent unwelcome interference from those with violent intent.

34. Counsel for the applicant asserted that a complaint to An Garda Síochána would not address the Minister’s impugned decision. There was no satisfactory explanation why such a complaint is not a viable and appropriate alternative remedy to the relief that the applicants seek from this Court by way of judicial review. The applicants have failed to establish arguable grounds why any such conduct would entitle them to proceed before this Court by way of judicial review rather than making a complaint to An Garda Síochána about unlawful and potentially criminal behaviour.

Decision

35. For the reasons set out above, I refuse this application for leave. The impugned

decision to provide accommodation for 98 applicants for international protection in the Merriman Hotel that was already designated as an accommodation centre for such applicants is not amenable to judicial review. Regulation 7 does not apply to that decision. There is no legal obligation on the part of the Minister to consult with local residents or prepare an assessment or evaluation of the impact the decision may have on local business or the availability of a local venue for family events or the availability of social services where a premises has already been designated as accommodation for applicants for international protection. The applicants have not established arguable grounds that the impugned

decision is invalid due to a claimed breach of fire safety and/or building regulations by the notice party and any such concern is a matter for the local enforcement body i.e., the County Council. The impugned decision identifies a rational and reasonable basis for the decision and furnished reasons, most of which is grounded in the State’s obligation to provide accommodation for applicants for international protection.

36. I refuse the application for leave.

Indicative view on costs

37. As the applicants have failed to secure leave to bring the judicial review and in circumstances where the application was heard on notice to the Minister and Minister appeared, and where the applicants have sought to rely on a personal interest in and a personal basis for the reliefs sought, my indicative view on costs in accordance with s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 is that the respondents are entitled to their costs. I will put the matter in for mention before me at 10am on 30 July 2025 when I will hear the parties further in relation to final orders including costs.

Counsel for the applicants: Mary Moran-Long BL

Counsel for the respondents: Aoife Carroll SC, Michael Judge BL