Kelly v Residential Tenancies Board [No. 2] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was the tenant of a dwelling located at a specified address in The City. The appeal arose from a determination order made by the Residential Tenancies Board ("RTB") on 10th January 2024 pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended) concerning the property. The notice party was the landlord of the property. The Appellant's statutory appeal against the RTB's decision was refused in the principal judgment. This opinion addresses the subsequent application concerning the question of costs following that refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the RTB is entitled to its costs against the Appellant following the refusal of the statutory appeal.
2. Whether the notice party is entitled to recover costs from the Appellant given its limited participation in the appeal proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant opposed the notice party's application for costs.
• Relied on passages from the judgment in Doyle v The Private Residential Tenancies Board & Anor [2016] IEHC 36, particularly paragraphs 13, 14, 21, 26, and 31, to argue against the notice party's entitlement to costs.
• Submitted that there was no objection from the notice party to an early hearing date, undermining the notice party's claim for costs related to expedited proceedings.

Notice Party's Arguments

• The notice party sought costs against the Appellant despite limited participation, emphasizing its application for an expedited hearing.
• Relied on the decision in Doyle v The Private Residential Tenancies Board & Anor [2016] IEHC 36, particularly the principle that a notice party may be entitled to costs depending on its role and participation.
• Highlighted affidavits sworn on behalf of the landlord and the notice party's limited but strategic involvement in the appeal process.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the default legal position that costs follow the event, meaning the successful party is generally entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances apply. The RTB, having succeeded in the appeal, was entitled to its costs against the Appellant.

Regarding the notice party's claim for costs, the court carefully examined the limited nature of the notice party's participation, which was largely confined to appearances at procedural mentions and affidavit evidence. The court emphasized the principle established in Doyle v The Private Residential Tenancies Board & Anor that a notice party does not have a central role in statutory appeals and that costs for notice parties hinge on the degree and justification of their participation.

The court noted that the notice party’s interests largely coincided with those of the RTB, which is the primary defender of the Tribunal’s decision, and that the notice party’s limited involvement facilitated an expedited hearing. Importantly, there was no opposition from the Appellant to the expedited hearing date, undermining the notice party's argument for costs on that basis.

Given these factors, the court concluded that awarding costs to the notice party against the Appellant was not appropriate. The court thus exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs between the notice party and the Appellant.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is as follows:

• The appeal by the Appellant against the RTB's determination order is REFUSED.
• The RTB is entitled to its costs, including reserved costs, against the Appellant, to be adjudicated by the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators if not agreed.
• No order as to costs is made in favor of the notice party against the Appellant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant must bear the RTB's costs but is not liable for any costs claimed by the notice party. The ruling does not establish new legal precedent but applies existing principles concerning the role of notice parties and costs in statutory appeals under the Residential Tenancies Act framework.