The High Court has refused landlord Gabriela Hennigan permission to judicially review a Residential Tenancies Board ruling which found that a tenant at a Dublin property had been unlawfully excluded and awarded him €7,850 in damages and deposit repayment.
Hennigan and her husband, Michael Hennigan, entered into a fixed-term tenancy with Laurent Stacchetti in August 2023. Hennigan claimed that arrangement was replaced by a licence agreement when occupation began in September 2023. Stacchetti disputed that and said he first became aware of the purported licence during the RTB process.
In March 2024, while Stacchetti was abroad, he was told he could not return unless he paid an invoice. When he returned on 3 April, the locks had been changed. No notice of termination had been served and rent had been paid to 22 April.
An RTB adjudicator initially awarded Stacchetti €15,000. The landlords appealed and received a full rehearing before a three-member tribunal over three dates in 2025.
The tribunal found that the arrangement was a tenancy covered by the Residential Tenancies Act, that the landlords had interfered with Stacchetti’s peaceful occupation, unlawfully terminated the tenancy and retained his €850 deposit. It awarded €3,500 for each of the first two breaches and ordered the deposit returned.
Hennigan then sought judicial review on numerous grounds including jurisdiction, alleged bias, fair procedures, disability-related arguments concerning her daughter, the condition of the property and family financial hardship.
Ms Justice Sara Phelan rejected all grounds. The judge held that whether the agreement was a tenancy or licence was a classic legal issue for Hennigan’s separate statutory appeal, which was already pending. Other matters, including her daughter’s circumstances, family finances and unrelated property damage, were not issues the tribunal had to determine.
The court also rejected allegations of bias and procedural unfairness. Leave for judicial review was refused. The separate statutory appeal remains pending and, because it has suspensive effect, the RTB determination is not currently enforceable.