Costs Determination in Kelly v Residential Tenancies Board [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 25

Introduction

The case of Kelly v Residential Tenancies Board [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 25 addresses a pivotal issue concerning the determination of legal costs in the context of statutory appeals against decisions made by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended). The appellant, Maureen Kelly, contested a determination order affecting her tenancy at 52 Morehampton Road, Dublin 4, where Miracove Holdings Limited serves as the landlord. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the case, focusing on the court's approach to awarding costs, the precedents considered, and the broader implications for future tenancy disputes.

Summary of the Judgment

In this judgment, Mr. Justice Conleth Bradley addressed the issue of legal costs following the principal judgment in Kelly v Residential Tenancies Board & Anor [2024] IEHC 730, where the appellant's statutory appeal was refused. The primary matter before the court was whether the RTB and the notice party, Miracove Holdings Limited, were entitled to recover their legal costs from the appellant. The court agreed that the RTB was entitled to its costs based on the default position where costs follow the event, as the appellant was not successful. However, the court determined that the notice party should not be awarded costs against the appellant, considering their limited participation and alignment with the RTB's interests.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to substantiate the court’s reasoning:

Doyle v The Private Residential Tenancies Board & Anor [2016] IEHC 36: This case explored whether a notice party is a "necessary party" in statutory appeals, focusing on the distinct interests parties may have.
Carroll v RTB [2022] IEHC 326 & Fitzpatrick v RTB [2023] IEHC 285: These cases reiterated the principles established in Doyle, emphasizing that costs following the event depend on the notice party's level of participation and justification.
Treasury Holdings & Ors v NAMA & Ors [2012] IEHC 518: Cited in Doyle, this case discussed the criteria for determining necessary parties in litigation.

These precedents collectively informed the High Court's approach to assessing whether costs should be awarded to the RTB and the notice party, highlighting the necessity of evaluating each party’s participation and the alignment of their interests with the primary litigant.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 to determine the allocation of costs. The default rule, as outlined in these provisions, posits that costs follow the event unless exceptions are justified based on the case's specifics and parties' conduct.

In this case, the RTB was deemed entitled to costs as the appellant's appeal was unsuccessful, and the RTB's interests were directly advanced by the refusal of the appeal. Conversely, the notice party's request for costs was denied because their involvement was minimal and aligned with the RTB's objectives. The court noted that the notice party did not play a central role in challenging the appellant's position; instead, their participation was limited to procedural appearances and supporting affidavits. This limited engagement did not warrant an independent cost award.

The court also emphasized that statutory appeals primarily address points of law and legal interpretation rather than factual disputes, thereby constraining the scope for notice parties to independently influence outcomes in a manner that would justify independent cost awards.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that in statutory appeals, costs typically follow the event, favoring the prevailing party. However, it also delineates the boundaries for notice parties seeking cost recovery, emphasizing that their entitlements are contingent upon their level of involvement and the distinctiveness of their interests compared to the primary parties.

For landlords and tenants alike, this decision provides clarity on the financial implications of engaging in statutory appeals. Landlords acting as notice parties can expect that unless their role is substantively central and their interests diverge from those of the RTB, they may not be successful in recovering legal costs. This may encourage more efficient participation in statutory processes, focusing on collaboration rather than adversarial cost claims.

Furthermore, future cases will likely reference this judgment when determining cost allocations involving multiple parties, ensuring consistency and fairness in the High Court's approach to similar disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cost Following the Event: This legal principle means that the losing party in a case is typically responsible for paying the successful party's legal costs. It ensures that parties are held accountable for pursuing meritless claims.

Notice Party: In legal proceedings, a notice party is an individual or entity that is not a direct party to the case but has an interest in the outcome and has been notified to participate if necessary.

Statutory Appeal: This refers to an appeal against a decision made by a statutory body (like the RTB) based on interpretations of specific statutes, focusing on legal questions rather than factual disputes.

Legitimus Contrictor: A party that has a legitimate opposing interest in a case, often the primary defender of a Tribunal's decision, ensuring that there is a fair and balanced litigation process.

Conclusion

The judgment in Kelly v Residential Tenancies Board [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 25 underscores the High Court of Ireland's measured approach to cost allocation in statutory appeals. By adhering to established precedents and emphasizing the necessity of active and distinct participation for cost entitlement, the court promotes judicial efficiency and fairness. Landlords and tenants engaging with the RTB must now consider their roles and the potential financial implications more carefully, ensuring that their involvement is not only substantive but also strategically aligned with their interests. This decision contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on legal costs, providing a clearer framework for future tenancy-related litigations.