The High Court refused Jasmine Teniola’s application for judicial review of a tenancy adjudication, finding that her complaints could have been dealt with through the statutory appeal process.
The challenge concerned a 6 March 2014 hearing before Private Residential Tenancies Board adjudicator Frank Brady. Teniola’s landlords had complained that she owed rent and was overholding after receiving a notice of termination. She sought to quash the adjudicator’s determination, arguing that the hearing was unfair because her solicitor and documents were unavailable, and alleging bias.
Ms Justice Baker said an appeal to the Tribunal would be a full rehearing. The Tribunal could consider the adjudicator’s report, but was not bound by it, and the parties could present evidence and witnesses. The appeal would prevent the adjudicator’s report from taking legal effect. The court considered that this process could address complaints about the conduct of the first hearing as well as disputed facts.
Teniola had received notice of the hearing date and knew an adjournment request had to be made in writing, but neither she nor her solicitor made one in writing. The judge found that she did not seek an adjournment during the hearing. She had not submitted documents within the stated time limit, brought documents or photographs to the hearing, or identified what specific documents were unavailable or how their absence caused prejudice.
The judge also found no demonstrated prejudice from the absence of legal representation. Teniola had attended the hearing and told the adjudicator she was willing to leave if her security deposit was returned. The determination directed her to give up possession within 14 days of the order’s issue and required the landlords to return the deposit on gaining possession, subject to amounts properly deductible under the Act. It also set out instalments for rent arrears. The court noted that Teniola had not contested the arrears at the adjudication.
On the condition of the dwelling, the judge found that Teniola had not raised the complaint or offered evidence about it at the hearing. The judge also rejected the bias claim: the alleged brief conversation between the adjudicator and the landlords after the hearing did not establish an objective basis for apprehending bias.
The court concluded that the complaints were capable of being addressed, and if necessary corrected, on a statutory appeal. It refused the relief sought. The judgment does not decide an appeal to the Tribunal or make a fresh determination of the underlying tenancy dispute.