Carroll v Residential Tenancies Board & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant entered into a tenancy agreement on 1 March 2020 with the second named Respondents ("the landlords") concerning a property in Burtonport, Co. Donegal. On 18 January 2021, the landlords served a notice of termination citing six grounds, with a termination date of 28 January 2021. The Appellant disputed the validity of this notice and applied to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) for dispute resolution on 25 January 2021. Following an adjudication hearing on 24 February 2021, which was adverse to the Appellant, he appealed and a Tribunal hearing was scheduled for 11 May 2021. The hearing was adjourned to allow the attendance of a Garda witness, who ultimately could not provide evidence due to an ongoing investigation. The Tribunal refused a further adjournment to await the outcome of the Garda investigation and continued the hearing, concluding on 18 June 2021. The Tribunal made its determination on 23 June 2021, which was notified to the RTB, who issued a determination order on 28 July 2021 upholding the termination notice on two of the six grounds. The Appellant subsequently sought to introduce further submissions and evidence, which the Tribunal declined as the hearing had concluded. The Appellant then appealed to the High Court pursuant to section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended), challenging the RTB's determination order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal erred as a matter of law in its determination or process under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
2. Whether the Tribunal improperly refused the Appellant's requests for adjournments, particularly regarding evidence from a Garda witness.
3. Whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were unsupported by evidence or unreasonable.
4. Whether the Tribunal applied the correct standard of proof in assessing the evidence.
5. Whether the Tribunal's management of cross-examination and procedural fairness met legal requirements.
6. Whether the Tribunal displayed bias or procedural impropriety.
7. Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory definition of antisocial behaviour in upholding the notice of termination.
8. Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to consider further submissions after the hearing concluded.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The notice of termination was invalid and the Tribunal erred in upholding it.
• The Tribunal improperly refused adjournments to allow evidence from a Garda witness involved in a related investigation.
• The Tribunal failed to properly consider injuries allegedly caused by the landlord's wife and ignored photographic evidence.
• The Tribunal improperly permitted the landlord to replace an initial witness statement with an amended version.
• The Tribunal treated a witness's illness unduly leniently and inconsistently.
• The Tribunal erred in defining trespass narrowly as criminal trespass.
• The Appellant was unfairly denied access to an audio recording of the hearing.
• The Tribunal was biased, allegedly motivated by the Appellant's nationality, resulting in unfair treatment.
• The Tribunal improperly refused to accept further submissions after the hearing concluded.
• The Tribunal applied an incorrect burden of proof standard, failing to require a higher evidentiary threshold.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Tribunal acted within its statutory powers and properly applied the law, including the statutory definition of antisocial behaviour.
• The refusal of adjournments was justified given the independence of the criminal investigation and the need for procedural fairness to the landlords.
• The Tribunal's findings of fact were supported by evidence, particularly undisputed or common case evidence.
• The balance of probabilities standard was correctly applied as the appropriate civil standard.
• The Appellant was afforded proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the hearing.
• The Tribunal's procedural decisions, including refusal of further submissions post-hearing, were lawful and consistent with statutory duties.
• There was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.
• No legal obligation existed to provide the Appellant with an audio recording of the hearing.
• The replacement of the initial statement was justified to protect witness privacy and did not prejudice the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized the statutory framework governing appeals under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, which limits the High Court to considering errors of law or process rather than reevaluating factual findings. The Court applied established principles from relevant precedents, including the necessity for findings of fact to be supported by evidence and for inferences to be reasonably drawn.

The Court found that the Tribunal's refusal of adjournments to await Garda evidence was lawful and reasonable, given the independence of the criminal investigation and the need for procedural fairness to the landlords. The Tribunal's findings on grounds 2 and 5 of the termination notice were based largely on undisputed common case evidence, including the Appellant's admitted conduct and credible witness testimony, and thus were not unreasonable or unsupported.

The Court rejected the Appellant's claims of bias, noting the high threshold for establishing objective bias and the absence of any external indicators of unfairness. The Tribunal's procedural management, including the allowance of cross-examination and refusal to accept further submissions after the hearing's conclusion, was found to be consistent with statutory powers and fair process.

The Court also found no error in the Tribunal's application of the balance of probabilities standard of proof, the handling of amended witness statements to protect privacy, or the denial of access to an audio recording, the latter being supported by precedent.

Overall, the Court concluded that the Appellant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness warranting interference with the Tribunal's determination.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Appellant's appeal pursuant to section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and upheld the RTB's determination order dated 28 July 2021, which upheld the termination notice on grounds 2 and 5.

The direct effect is that the termination of the tenancy stands as determined by the Tribunal and RTB. The Court did not set any new legal precedent beyond reaffirming established principles governing statutory appeals on points of law under the Act. Indicative costs were awarded to the RTB, with the second named Respondents not entitled to costs due to their lay litigant status and limited participation. The parties were given an opportunity to make submissions on costs and final orders on a specified date.