Factual and Procedural Background
The Tenant commenced a tenancy of a residential dwelling in The City on 7 December 2018. On 30 December 2022, the Landlord served a Notice of Termination on the Tenant, citing ground 3 of the Table to section 34(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended) ("the 2004 Act"), which permits termination if the landlord intends to enter into an enforceable contract for sale within nine months after termination of the tenancy. The Notice was accompanied by a statutory declaration and stated a termination date of 30 June 2023.
The Tenant did not dispute receipt of the Notice but remained in occupation beyond the termination date and did not refer a dispute challenging the Notice within the prescribed time. The Landlord sought to gain possession, applying to the Residential Tenancies Board ("RTB") under section 78 of the 2004 Act for a determination on 29 June 2023, alleging overholding by the Tenant.
An Adjudication hearing was held on 27 October 2023, resulting in a determination that the Notice of Termination was valid and ordering the Tenant to vacate within 28 days of the Determination Order. The Tenant appealed this determination to a Tribunal, which held a hybrid hearing on 6 February 2024. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the Notice and found the Tenant was overholding. The Tribunal rejected the Tenant's claims of breach of landlord obligations and procedural unfairness. The RTB issued a Determination Order on 13 March 2024 confirming the Tribunal's decision.
The Tenant then appealed the Determination Order to the High Court on a point of law pursuant to section 123 of the 2004 Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to recognise a valid oral agreement between the parties that prevented termination of the tenancy.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation and application of sections 34, 35, and 62 of the 2004 Act concerning the validity of the Notice of Termination based on the Landlord's intention to sell.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in law by proceeding with an application that was filed prematurely.
- Whether the Tribunal erred by conducting the hearing in a hybrid/remote format, thereby affecting fairness.
- Whether the RTB and Tribunal erred in their duties under section 122 of the 2004 Act to maintain consistency with previous determinations.
- Whether the Tribunal erred by failing to recognise that the Landlord breached section 12(1)(a) of the 2004 Act by interfering with the Tenant's right to peaceful occupation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Tenant contended that an oral agreement was made in September 2022 whereby the Landlord agreed not to sell the dwelling while the Tenant remained in occupation, creating a permanent tenancy that barred termination on the sale ground.
- The Tenant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by accepting the Notice of Termination despite insufficient evidence that the Landlord had a genuine intention to sell within nine months, relying on case law requiring more than a general intention.
- The Tenant claimed the Landlord's application to the RTB was premature, having been made before the termination date expired.
- The Tenant objected to the hybrid hearing format, asserting it was unfair and prejudicial, emphasizing the importance of non-verbal communication and physical presence.
- The Tenant contended the RTB failed to engage section 122 to address alleged inconsistencies with previous determinations.
- The Tenant maintained that the Landlord breached the statutory obligation to allow peaceful and exclusive occupation by unannounced visits, authorizing a neighbour to monitor him, and engaging in aggressive conduct, creating a hostile environment.
Respondent's Arguments (RTB and Landlord)
- The RTB submitted that the alleged oral agreement was not established on the evidence and did not create a permanent tenancy or waive the Landlord’s statutory rights to terminate.
- The RTB maintained that the Tribunal correctly applied the law regarding the validity of the Notice of Termination, relying on evidence including the statutory declaration, the Landlord’s personal circumstances, engagement with estate agents and solicitors, and correspondence evidencing intention to sell.
- The RTB contended that the issue of prematurity concerned the RTB’s acceptance of the dispute and was not properly a point of law against the Tribunal’s decision.
- The RTB argued the hybrid hearing was lawful under the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and related statutory instruments, and that no procedural unfairness or prejudice was demonstrated.
- The RTB submitted that section 122 is a discretionary power of the RTB, not the Tribunal, and failure to exercise it is not subject to appeal on a point of law in these proceedings.
- The RTB and Landlord contended that the Tribunal reasonably found no breach of the Landlord’s obligations, based on the evidence including video recordings and witness testimony, and that the Landlord’s conduct did not amount to harassment or interference with peaceful occupation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Hennessy v. PRTB [2016] IEHC 174 |
Clarification that the operative reason for termination on ground 3 is the landlord’s intention to bind himself to a contract for sale within the statutory period; intention must exist when notice is served. |
Court applied the principle that a landlord need not have a signed contract at the time of notice but must have a bona fide intention to enter into one within nine months; Tribunal’s finding supported by evidence beyond statutory declaration. |
| Gunn v. RTB [2020] IEHC 635 |
Requirement that evidence must demonstrate an intention to enter into an enforceable contract within the statutory period; absence of evidence invalidates termination. |
Court distinguished earlier three-month period from current nine-month period; accepted that intention may crystallize after notice; Tribunal’s assessment of evidence upheld. |
| Stulpinaite |
Statutory declaration is some evidence of intention but not strong evidence; burden shifts to landlord if tenant raises bona fide doubt. |
Court noted Tribunal’s acceptance of statutory declaration and other evidence as sufficient; burden properly discharged by landlord. |
| Kelly v. RTB [2024] IEHC 730 |
Extension of period to nine months allows practical effect to landlord’s right to sell; statutory declaration is some evidence; no requirement for signed contracts at notice stage. |
Tribunal’s reliance on statutory declaration plus additional evidence was correct; Tribunal’s interpretation of statutory scheme upheld. |
| Doyle v. PRTB [2015] IEHC 724 |
Tribunal’s power to determine disputes broadly; no requirement that disputes be formally set out before hearing; Tribunal’s factual findings entitled to deference. |
Court accepted that prematurity argument was misplaced; Tribunal properly exercised jurisdiction to determine dispute. |
| Olaszewski v. RTB [2025] IEHC 113 |
Strict time limits for filing appeals under s. 123 of 2004 Act must be observed; no power to extend time for appeal. |
Court rejected Tenant’s objection to late filing of opposition papers as irrelevant to appeal jurisdiction; confirmed no extension of time for appeal. |
| Lyaba v. RTB [2023] IEHC 491 |
Assessment of evidence is primarily a matter for the Tribunal; appeal on point of law limited to errors such as no evidence or irrationality. |
Court upheld Tribunal’s factual findings on breach of obligations; no error of law established. |
| Canty v. PRTB [2007] IEHC 243 |
High threshold for interfering with Tribunal’s factual findings; no interference unless no evidence supports findings. |
Court applied principle to uphold Tribunal’s findings on landlord’s intention to sell. |
| WebSummit v. RTB [2023] IEHC 634 |
High bar for appeal on point of law; no reasonable decision-maker could have reached contrary conclusion. |
Court emphasized deference to Tribunal’s factual findings; applied in assessing evidence of landlord’s intention. |
| O'Sheehan & Ors. v. RTB & Ors. [2024] IEHC 409 |
Errors such as defective or no reasoning constitute errors of law amenable to appeal under s. 123. |
Court distinguished between errors of law and merits; no such error found in present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidence and statutory framework governing the termination of Part 4 tenancies under the 2004 Act. It noted that the Tenant’s appeal was limited to points of law and emphasized the well-established principle that findings of primary fact and inferences drawn therefrom by the Tribunal are entitled to deference unless no evidence supports them or they are irrational.
Regarding the alleged oral agreement, the Court found that the Tribunal did not reject the possibility of oral tenancies per se but concluded on the evidence that no enforceable agreement barring termination was established. The Court agreed that a mere statement of no intention to sell at an earlier time does not preclude a later valid notice if the requisite intention exists when the notice is served.
On the validity of the Notice of Termination, the Court reviewed relevant case law, including the extension of the period for entering into a contract from three to nine months, which renders the statutory declaration and accompanying evidence more meaningful. The Court found the Tribunal’s assessment that the Landlord had the requisite intention at the relevant time was supported by evidence including the statutory declaration, correspondence, personal circumstances, and engagement with estate agents and solicitors. The absence of signed contracts was not determinative.
The Court rejected the Tenant’s argument that the Landlord’s application to the RTB was premature, holding that the existence of a dispute prior to the expiry of the notice period justified referral and that the timing did not invalidate the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or decision.
Regarding the hybrid hearing format, the Court found that the RTB’s statutory designation to hold remote hearings was lawful and that no prejudice or unfairness was demonstrated by the Tenant. The Tribunal had a duty to ensure fairness and could have adjourned if necessary, but no such basis arose here.
The Court held that complaints about the RTB’s failure to engage section 122 were matters for separate judicial review proceedings and not properly raised on appeal from the Tribunal’s decision.
On the claim of breach of landlord obligations, the Court, having reviewed the evidence including video recordings, concluded that the Tribunal’s finding of no breach was sustainable and not one that no reasonable decision-maker could make. The Landlord’s conduct was found to be within the bounds of lawful inquiry and frustration in the context of overholding tenancy.
The Court also dismissed the Tenant’s application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the RTB in these appeal proceedings, emphasizing procedural requirements and time limits.
Holding and Implications
The Court’s final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEAL.
The Court held that the Tenant failed to establish any error of law in the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal’s findings on the validity of the Notice of Termination, the Landlord’s intention to sell, the timing of the RTB application, the fairness of the hybrid hearing, and the absence of breach of landlord obligations were all supported by evidence and correctly applied the law. The Tenant’s complaints regarding procedural matters and RTB powers were either not properly before the Court or lacked merit.
The direct effect is that the Determination Order of the RTB stands, requiring the Tenant to vacate the dwelling within the prescribed time. No new legal precedent was established, and the Court reaffirmed the established legal principles governing appeals on points of law and landlord-tenant disputes under the 2004 Act.