The High Court has ordered that €45,000 from a tenant’s inheritance be retained while her landlord pursues enforcement of a Residential Tenancies Tribunal order for unpaid rent. The court refused the landlord’s requests to attach the money directly or appoint a receiver, ruling that recovery must proceed through the statutory enforcement process.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland on 29 September 2023, arose from a dispute between Carley Hamilton, the landlord Kevin McKeown and the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). The underlying determination required Hamilton to pay rent arrears, including monthly instalments, and upheld a notice of termination. Her High Court appeal was dismissed in March 2023, leaving the determination binding.
McKeown had sought a garnishee order attaching €45,000 from Hamilton’s inheritance or, alternatively, appointment of a receiver. He also sought to increase the amount covered by the original restraint to reflect rent arrears he said had grown to €73,041. Justice Hyland said the landlord could seek enforcement of the determination in the District Court under the Residential Tenancies Act. Direct attachment or a receiver would bypass that statutory route, including the tenant’s limited right to raise specified grounds in enforcement proceedings. The requested variation to €73,041 was unnecessary because the determination already captured further arrears, she said.
Hamilton asked the court to set aside the original restraint, arguing that McKeown had failed to disclose settlement negotiations when seeking it in 2022. The judge ruled that the contents of without-prejudice communications could not be relied on because privilege had not been waived. However, the fact that negotiations had taken place could be raised and should have been disclosed to the court.
Justice Hyland found the omission material, since knowledge of negotiations would have made it harder to infer that Hamilton had not engaged over using inheritance money to pay the debt. But she found it was an innocent mistake, not an attempt to mislead, and that other factors—including prolonged non-payment and remaining in the property—had supported the original restraint. She refused to discharge it.
Instead, the judge said the omission should be reflected in the costs order. She invited written submissions on a proposed change that would reduce McKeown’s entitlement to the costs of the original motion to 50%; that proposal was not yet a final order in this judgment.
The court then made a fresh order restraining Hamilton, and anyone with notice, from dissipating inheritance funds below €45,000. The sum must remain available pending the District Court’s decision on enforcement and, if appealed, the Circuit Court’s decision, until at least €45,000 of rent arrears is discharged. Hamilton may apply to vary the restraint if no enforcement application is made within six weeks after the order is perfected.