Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a determination of the Tenancy Tribunal of the Residential Tenancies Board ("the RTB") concerning the validity of a notice of rent review served by a landlord ("the Landlord") on tenants ("the Tenants") of a dwelling located at 25 The Garth, Kingswood Heights, Tallaght, Dublin 24. The Landlord sought to rely on an exemption under sections 19(5) and 19(5A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 ("RTA 2004") which permits a rent review outside the usual restrictions applicable in a rent pressure zone if there has been a permanent increase in the number of rooms in the dwelling.
The Landlord argued that works carried out had converted a previously non-compliant bedroom—formerly only classifiable as storage—into a compliant bedroom, thereby effecting a permanent increase in the number of rooms. The Tenancy Tribunal rejected this, holding that the building regulations were irrelevant to the determination of whether there was an increase in rooms and found the notice of rent review invalid. The Landlord appealed to the High Court on a point of law under section 123 of the RTA 2004.
The appeal was heard on 1 May 2025 before Mr. Justice Garrett Simons. The Landlord and RTB were represented by legal counsel, and the Tenants appeared in person.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the term "room" in the context of section 19(5A) of the RTA 2004 is confined to areas intended for living or sleeping purposes or whether it also includes areas intended for storage.
- Whether, to avail of the exemption from rent restriction rules, the area must be capable of lawful use for living or sleeping purposes, i.e., compliant with applicable legislation including building regulations and prescribed standards for rented accommodation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Landlord contended that the works rendered a previously non-compliant bedroom compliant with ventilation and fire safety standards, thereby increasing the number of rooms.
- The Landlord argued that prior to the works, the area could only be considered storage and not a "room".
- It was submitted that the assessment of a permanent increase in rooms requires more than counting partitioned areas; it must consider lawful use and compliance with standards.
- The Landlord also advanced, as a fallback, that the Tenancy Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision.
Respondent's Arguments (Residential Tenancies Board)
- The RTB adopted a broad interpretation of "room," submitting that any self-contained area with a ceiling, walls, floor, and door constitutes a room regardless of habitability or compliance with building regulations.
- Counsel for the RTB argued that the term "room" does not require meeting minimum standards such as floor area, height, or ventilation.
- The RTB maintained that building regulations are irrelevant to determining if there is a permanent increase in rooms for the purpose of the exemption.
Tenants' Arguments
- The Tenants appeared in person and provided submissions supporting the invalidity of the notice of rent review.
- They challenged the engineer's report relied upon by the Landlord, noting issues with its preparation and applicability.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Fitzgibbon v. Law Society [2014] IESC 48 |
Principles governing appeals on points of law; limited role of appellate court; not a rehearing. |
Established the framework for the High Court's jurisdiction on appeals on points of law under the RTA 2004. |
| An Bord Banistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ v. Labour Court [2024] IESC 38 |
Clarification that appeals on points of law are not rehearings and appellate courts do not reweigh facts. |
Reaffirmed the limited scope of appeal and the court’s role in reviewing legal errors only. |
| Marwaha v. Residential Tenancies Board [2016] IEHC 308 |
Application of Fitzgibbon principles to appeals under section 123 RTA 2004; standards for interfering with Tribunal findings. |
Outlined key principles guiding review of Tenancy Tribunal decisions on points of law. |
| Web Summit Services Ltd v. Residential Tenancies Board [2023] IEHC 634 |
High threshold for overturning reasonable Tribunal findings; importance of properly reasoned decisions. |
Emphasized curial deference to Tribunal’s fact-finding where decisions are properly reasoned. |
| Attorney General v. Davis [2018] IESC 27 |
Errors such as defective or no reasoning constitute errors of law amenable to appeal. |
Supported the Landlord’s fallback argument on adequacy of reasons. |
| Governors & Guardians of the Hospital for the Relief of Poor Lying-in Women, Dublin v. Information Commissioner [2011] IESC 26 |
Points of law must have been argued and decided at first instance; no de novo hearing on appeal. |
Reinforced the principle that new factual issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. |
| O'Sheehan v. Residential Tenancies Board [2024] IEHC 409 |
Failure to provide adequate reasons by a first-instance decision-maker is an error of law. |
Supported the requirement for adequate reasoning by the Tenancy Tribunal. |
| Heather Hill Management Company v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 43 |
Statutory interpretation requires considering legislative context and purpose, not just literal meaning. |
Guided the court’s approach to interpreting "room" and "accommodation" in the RTA 2004. |
| Maher v. Dublin City Council [2024] IESC 14 |
Meaning of statutory words must be understood in their general legal setting and legislative purpose. |
Reinforced contextual statutory interpretation applied in this case. |
| Donegal County Council v. Quinn [2025] IESC 19 |
Statutory construction focuses on meaning and legislative intent, including the rationale behind the words used. |
Supported the purposive interpretation of "room" and "accommodation". |
| Lima v. Residential Tenancies Board [2025] IEHC 29 |
Errors in statutory interpretation by the Tenancy Tribunal are appealable as points of law. |
Confirmed that misinterpretation of the statutory test for "permanent increase in rooms" is an error of law. |
| Stanberry Investments Ltd v. Commissioner of Valuation [2020] IECA 33 |
Curial deference requires properly reasoned decisions at first instance. |
Analogous authority supporting deference to the Tribunal’s findings if properly reasoned. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reaffirming the established principles governing appeals on points of law under section 123 of the RTA 2004, emphasizing that such appeals are not rehearings and that the High Court must respect the Tenancy Tribunal's fact-finding unless no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion.
The court analyzed the statutory language and purpose of the exemption under sections 19(5) and 19(5A) of the RTA 2004, focusing on the meaning of "room" and "accommodation". It held that these terms must be interpreted purposively, in light of the legislative objective to ensure rent stability while allowing rent reviews where there has been a substantial beneficial change in accommodation.
The court rejected the broad definition of "room" advanced by the Tenancy Tribunal and the RTB, which included non-habitable storage spaces and areas non-compliant with building regulations. Instead, it held that a "room" must be a partitioned area lawfully available for living or sleeping purposes, compliant with building regulations and prescribed standards for rented accommodation.
It further held that works necessary solely to bring accommodation into compliance with minimum standards cannot be treated as creating an increase in rooms for the exemption.
Regarding the evidence, the court found that the engineer's report was insufficient to support a lawful finding that the relevant bedroom had been non-compliant prior to the works. The report lacked inspection by the author, failed to identify specific breaches, and was possibly based on inapplicable guidance. Consequently, no reasonable decision-maker could have found the Landlord entitled to the exemption on the evidence presented.
Given these findings, the court concluded that remitting the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal would serve no useful purpose, as the outcome would be the same. It also emphasized the importance of finality in landlord and tenant disputes and rejected the possibility of allowing new evidence at this stage.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed.
The court held that the Tenancy Tribunal erred in law by adopting an overly broad interpretation of "room" and disregarding the relevance of building regulations and prescribed standards to the availability of the exemption from rent restrictions under the RTA 2004.
It was further held that, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the Landlord was not entitled to the exemption. Therefore, the notice of rent review was invalid.
No remittal to the Tenancy Tribunal was ordered, as it would not alter the outcome. The decision reinforces that only lawful, compliant accommodation can count towards exemptions from rent restrictions, thus upholding tenant protections and the legislative purpose of rent stability in rent pressure zones.
Regarding costs, the court proposed that the RTB recover one-third of its costs from the Landlord, reflecting partial success, and that the Tenants recover reasonable expenses as litigants in person from the RTB.