Anderson & Anor v Fitzgerald & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The proceedings concern a claim by the Plaintiffs to recover possession of lands pursuant to a charge registered under Section 62 of the Registration of Title Act 1964. The first Plaintiff has been appointed as receiver over the mortgaged property owned by the first Defendant. The second Defendant, who is the sibling of the first Defendant, claims to have a tenancy over the mortgaged property purportedly created by the first Defendant on 1 December 2015 for a term of seven years. The tenancy has not been registered with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB).

The second Defendant alleges she paid rent initially to the first Defendant and later to a company named "Newgrange," with payments evidenced by bank statements. The Plaintiffs dispute that these payments constitute rent, asserting that the payments were credited against the outstanding loan debt under the mortgage held by the second Plaintiff, which contains a negative pledge clause prohibiting leases without lender consent.

The second Defendant applied to the RTB for adjudication regarding her tenancy rights and subsequently sought to adjourn the High Court proceedings pending the RTB adjudication. The RTB initially closed the case due to ambiguity over the landlord’s identity but may have reopened it following additional information. The High Court reserved judgment on the adjournment application after hearing submissions and receiving further affidavit evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the purported tenancy lies with the High Court or with the Residential Tenancies Board.
2. Whether the RTB has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning the existence and termination of tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

Arguments of the Parties

Second Defendant's Arguments

• The second Defendant contends she has the benefit of a tenancy under Part 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
• The tenancy has not been validly terminated by service of a notice of termination.
• She has referred a dispute to the RTB and seeks an adjournment of the High Court proceedings pending adjudication by the RTB.
• The payments made to Newgrange constitute rent giving rise to a tenancy by estoppel.

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs assert the mortgage deed contains a negative pledge clause prohibiting leases without their consent.
• The payments made by the second Defendant were made into a bank account controlled by the second Plaintiff and were applied to reduce the outstanding loan debt, not as rent.
• No valid tenancy arose, whether by estoppel or otherwise.
• The RTB does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a valid tenancy ever existed; that is a matter for the High Court.
• The application to adjourn should be refused.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the statutory framework governing the RTB's jurisdiction under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. It noted that the RTB's jurisdiction is conditional on the existence or termination of a valid tenancy and is limited to resolving disputes arising from such tenancies. The Court emphasized that the RTB does not have jurisdiction to determine the jurisdictional fact of whether a valid tenancy ever existed.

Applying principles of administrative law, the Court held that an inferior tribunal like the RTB cannot determine its own jurisdiction conclusively. The RTB may preliminarily assess whether a tenancy exists but any error in assuming jurisdiction would be an error of law. The Court found that the High Court's original jurisdiction to determine the existence and validity of a tenancy, especially where complex issues such as a negative pledge clause and tenancy by estoppel arise, is not ousted by the RTB's jurisdiction.

The Court further explained that the resolution of the tenancy issue involves matters beyond the RTB's expertise, including third-party rights and mortgage law considerations. Therefore, the High Court must retain the authority to decide these issues.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the second Defendant's application to adjourn the proceedings pending adjudication by the Residential Tenancies Board.

This decision means that the High Court will proceed to determine the existence and validity of the purported tenancy. The RTB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the question of whether a valid tenancy ever existed, and the High Court's jurisdiction in this regard remains intact. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles confirming the limits of RTB jurisdiction and the High Court's authority in possession proceedings involving mortgage charges and disputed tenancies.

Costs of the adjournment motion are provisionally awarded to the Plaintiffs, with the second Defendant permitted to argue for a different costs order at a subsequent directions hearing.