The High Court has dismissed Web Summit Services Limited’s appeal against a Tenancy Tribunal order requiring it to pay €20,000 to its landlord for damage to a rented property in Dublin 6.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the Tribunal was entitled to find that grease, coffee granules and other food waste disposed of by occupants caused a blockage in a pipe connected to the kitchen sink. The resulting water damage was beyond normal wear and tear and breached the tenant’s obligations under section 16(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.
The appeal was confined to points of law. Web Summit argued that the Tribunal had failed to make a necessary finding that the sink was used abnormally, or that any such finding was one no reasonable decision-maker could reach on the evidence. The company maintained that the disposal and accumulation of small amounts of waste could arise through normal use.
The judge rejected both grounds. He read the Tribunal’s decision as finding that the manner of waste disposal was not normal wear and tear. That conclusion could reasonably be inferred from evidence that a large accumulation had built up over the tenancy, and from a drain-clearing report identifying coffee waste, grease and food deposits as the cause of the blockage. The Tribunal was not required to make a separate finding using the words “non-normal use”.
The Tribunal’s order followed a de novo hearing in May 2022, at which the landlord’s property agent gave evidence and Web Summit called no witnesses. The Tribunal found the occupants’ disposal of waste caused the blockage and ordered €20,000 in damages. The High Court did not rehear the dispute or set a new damages figure; it considered whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally flawed. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the Tribunal’s determination and order in place.
The earlier adjudicator had found that the waste disposal did not breach the tenant’s obligations, but attributed 20% of repair costs to the company for delaying notification of the leak. That adjudicator’s determination fell away when the matter proceeded to the Tribunal. The landlord did not participate in the High Court appeal.