Clarifying Commencement of Appeal Period under s.123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004: “Issue” and “Filing” Dates Defined

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court’s decision in O’Driscoll & Anor v Residential Tenancies Board [2025] IEHC 283, delivered by Ms Justice Eileen Roberts on 16 May 2025. The case arises from an appeal on a point of law under section 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (the “2004 Act”). The principal questions were:

When does the 21-day “relevant period” for appealing a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) determination begin?
What constitutes the act of making an appeal – in particular, when is an appeal “issued”?

The appellants, Katherine J. O’Driscoll and Keith M. O’Reilly, challenged the RTB’s determination in a tenancy dispute with their landlord. The RTB argued that the appeal was filed one day late and thus out of time; the appellants contended that time runs from receipt of the determination and that their appeal was issued within the 21-day window.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held:

The “relevant period” of 21 days in s.123(8) begins on the date a determination order is “issued to the parties,” which means the date it is sent or posted by the RTB, not the date it is received.
Where multiple parties are entitled to appeal, time runs from the latest date on which any party was issued with the order.
An appeal is not “made” until the originating notice of motion is filed in the High Court Central Office and date-stamped as filed; earlier stamping, swearing or dating of documents does not stop the running of time.
On the facts, the RTB posted the Determination Order on 13 June 2024 to all parties, starting the clock on that date. The appellants’ notice of motion was not filed until 4 July 2024, one day after the 21-day period expired on 3 July 2024. The appeal was therefore out of time and must be dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Enners v Residential Tenancies Board [2023] IEHC 216 (Heslin J): Distinguished “received by” from “issued to” and held that s.123 refers to issuance, not receipt.
Halbherr v Residential Tenancies Board & McCann [2018] IEHC 595 (Meenan J): Confirmed that s.123(8) uses “issued” and does not invoke the Interpretation Act 2005’s service provisions.
Noone v Residential Tenancies Board & Roe [2017] IEHC 556 (Noonan J): Established that the time limit in s.123 is absolute and non-extendable.
Kirwan v O’Leary [2023] IESC 27: Confirmed by the Supreme Court that absolute time-limits for statutory appeals permit no extension.
Abeyneh v RTB [2023] IEHC 81 (Bolger J): Held that an appeal is made when the notice of motion is filed in the Central Office.
MCK v H. [2002] WJSC-HC 5092 (Finnegan P): Reinforced that a motion is brought when filed under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by interpreting s.123(8), which defines “relevant period” as “the period of 21 days beginning on the date that the determination order concerned is issued to the parties.” Noting the deliberate choice of “issued” rather than “served” or “received,” Justice Roberts held that issuance requires posting or sending. She declined to read in receipt as the trigger, emphasizing legislative precision.

Addressing inconsistent issue dates across parties, the court invoked s.75(4) of the 2004 Act, which treats references to “a party” as encompassing all parties to the dispute. The court concluded time must run from the latest issuance date to any party, ensuring a single uniform deadline. Though practice indicated simultaneous posting, the court required RTB to confirm same-day issuance upon request; where separate dates arise, the clock starts on the last date of issue.

On the appellate threshold, the court held that swearing affidavits or stamping for stamp duty are procedural preliminaries that do not constitute the act of appealing. An appeal is only “made” when the notice of motion is formally filed and date-stamped by the High Court Central Office.

Applying the law to the facts, the RTB posted the Determination Order on 13 June 2024. The 21-day period therefore expired on 3 July 2024. The appellants’ documents were not filed until 4 July 2024, placing the appeal outside the statutory window. The court had no jurisdiction to extend the deadline.

Impact

This judgment establishes clear rules for litigants and the RTB:

“Issue” means the date of posting or sending, irrespective of receipt. Parties must be vigilant from that date.
Where multiple parties exist, the appeal clock starts on the date the last party is issued the determination.
An appeal is not effected by preliminary stamping or affidavit-swearing; only the Central Office filing date matters.

Lower courts and practitioners must adjust procedures: RTB should document and confirm issue dates to all parties; litigants must file motions promptly and verify filing dates to avoid forfeiting rights. The decision promotes certainty, uniformity and strict compliance with statutory time-limits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Issued to the parties”: The moment the RTB sends or posts the written determination to any party, not when the party opens or receives it.
“Relevant period”: The fixed 21-day timeframe during which an appeal must be lodged, counted from the date of issue.
“Filing” an appeal: The formal act of submitting the originating notice of motion to the High Court Central Office and obtaining a filing stamp. Preliminary stamping or affidavit-swearing does not qualify.
“Absolute time limit”: A statutory deadline that cannot be extended by the court, regardless of hardship or application.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in O’Driscoll & Anor v RTB decisively clarifies two key procedural points under s.123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004: (1) the appeal clock starts on the date the determination order is issued (sent or posted) to all parties, and (2) an appeal is only “made” when the notice of motion is filed and date-stamped by the High Court Central Office. These pronouncements enhance certainty in the appeals process but underscore the unforgiving nature of statutory time-limits. Practitioners and statutory bodies must now ensure accurate, contemporaneous recording of issue dates and vigilant, timely filing of appeals to safeguard appellants’ rights.