THE High Court has refused to allow a man to continue his challenge to regulations allowing the accelerated development of housing for asylum seekers and displaced Ukrainians.

Justice Richard Humphreys said Patrick McGreal’s case had a “potentially arguable point” but was based on “abstract premises” and lacked the factual engagement needed to proceed.

The judge recommended that Mr. McGreal, who was not represented by a legal team, should in any possible future case “err on the side of leaving aside charges of felony, fraud and perjury” because such allegations tend not to assist the court in this area. context.

The regulation, introduced last year by the Housing Minister Darragh O’Brienallow the Minister of Integration to grant an exemption from building permits for the temporary use of buildings or sites intended to accommodate displaced persons and persons seeking international protection.

Mr McGreal, of Co Westmeath, wanted the court to stop their use and grant an injunction preventing international protection applicants and displaced people from being accommodated in accommodation which “does not fall within the scope of application of the provisions of the Planning and Development Act. 2000″.

Among his claims was that the regulations did not explicitly address a purported requirement for proper planning of essential community infrastructure.

Mr McGreal has previously unsuccessfully sought an injunction to stop a proposal to house asylum seekers in a hotel in the village of Dundrum, Co Tipperary. This request was filed in a separate court case.

The sole defendant in the case over the 2023 regulations, the Minister of Housing, filed a motion asking the court to overturn a judge’s earlier order allowing Mr. McGreal to continue his challenge to the regulations. The minister said the case revealed no reasonable cause of action against him and was “frivolous, vexatious and self-defeating.”

Judge Humphreys found various “remedial” flaws in Mr McGreal’s legal documents. However, he said insurmountable obstacles included his lack of standing to sue, the “abstract nature of the challenge” and its timing.

The judge said an applicant “cannot simply come to court to challenge measures of general application in isolation.” Laws passed many years ago can, he said, be legally challenged, but such cases must concern “a new factual situation” rather than being based on “maybe this law you just consulted is unconstitutional.”

He disagrees with Mr McGreal that simply being an Irish citizen or committed to democratic values ​​can be enough to challenge the regulations.

Justice Humphreys said Mr McGreal had a “potentially arguable argument” about the reasonableness of the conclusion that the effects of temporary housing for asylum seekers were so limited as to justify an exemption from licensing requirements. build.

However, he said various issues with his case could not be resolved. The judge overturned the “permission” previously granted by his colleague, which had allowed Mr. McGreal’s case to continue. He reasoned that each party should be responsible for their own legal fees and expenses.