Fitzpatrick v Residential Tenancies Board (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal brought pursuant to Section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The Appellant challenged a decision of the Residential Tenancies Board (the Respondent), with a landlord joined as a notice party. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds in a written judgment delivered on 12 May 2023. The Appellant, representing herself, did not appear at the hearing and an application for adjournment was refused. The appeal was heard de bene esse to ensure any arguments in favour of the Appellant were considered despite her absence. The Residential Tenancies Board was successful in defending the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Residential Tenancies Board is entitled to recover its legal costs following a successful appeal dismissal under Section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
2. Whether the notice party (landlord) is entitled to a costs order given their limited role in the appeal proceedings.
3. The appropriate application of Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 regarding costs entitlement and the court's discretion in awarding costs.
4. The role and entitlement of notice parties in statutory appeals under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Residential Tenancies Board submitted that, as the entirely successful party, it was entitled to costs under Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
• They relied on the default position that a successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs, subject to the court's discretion and relevant factors.
• Cited precedent including the Court of Appeal decision in Lee v. Revenue Commissioners [2021] IECA 114 to support the entitlement to costs.

Notice Party's Arguments

• The notice party made brief submissions but did not file written submissions addressing the substantive appeal.
• Their position was that their role was limited and largely coincided with that of the Residential Tenancies Board.

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant did not participate in the appeal hearing or the costs hearing and made no submissions on costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the default rule under Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 that a party entirely successful in proceedings is ordinarily entitled to costs, subject to the court's discretion. The Residential Tenancies Board was entirely successful, and there was no factor present to justify departing from the default position. The Appellant did not engage with the proceedings or the costs hearing, offering no basis to refuse costs or to award costs in her favour.

Regarding the notice party (landlord), the court noted the statutory appeal framework confines the role of notice parties. The Residential Tenancies Board is the primary defender (legitimus contradictor) of the Tribunal's decision. The notice party's submissions were limited and did not add materially to the issues addressed by the Board, particularly as the appeal concerned a jurisdictional point under the Equal Status Act 2000. The court relied on prior High Court decisions to conclude that costs should not be awarded to the notice party given their limited and non-central participation.

The court ordered costs in favour of the Residential Tenancies Board to be adjudicated in default of agreement, measured on the basis of a half day hearing. It excluded costs related to the adjournment application granted to allow the Appellant a final opportunity to participate, as these additional costs were not recoverable.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered costs in favour of the Residential Tenancies Board against the Appellant, with costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement under Part 10 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The costs include those related to the substantive hearing, written submissions, and the costs hearing, measured on a half day hearing basis.

No order for costs was made in favour of the notice party landlord. The court dismissed the appeal in accordance with Section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The decision does not establish new precedent but confirms the application of existing principles regarding costs entitlement in statutory appeals and the limited role and entitlement of notice parties in such proceedings.