The High Court has ruled that a landlord’s failure to sign and return a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) form for an existing tenant can amount to discrimination under the Equal Status Acts. It set aside the Circuit Court’s decision and remitted the matter for a rehearing, without deciding the compensation or jurisdiction issues still before that court.
In a judgment delivered on 17 October 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger heard an appeal by Michael McNamara against a Circuit Court decision that had overturned a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication in his favour. The High Court appeal was limited to a point of law.
McNamara entered a tenancy with Aideen McCormack and Stephen Murray in 2015. Louth County Council approved him for HAP in November 2017. The landlords signed and returned the required form in July 2020, and payments began in September 2020. McNamara complained that the delay deprived him of nearly three years of HAP.
The WRC adjudication officer found that McNamara had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground and awarded him €10,000. The Circuit Court later set aside that decision. As recounted by the High Court, the Circuit Court held that refusing or delaying a HAP form was not discrimination; it considered the relevant protection to apply where a landlord refused to accept a HAP tenant.
Justice Bolger held that the Circuit Court had erred in law. She found that a tenant approved for HAP is covered by the housing assistance ground even before payments reach the landlord. The protection applies during an existing tenancy, and does not depend on the tenant first receiving the payment.
The High Court also held that McNamara’s evidence that he had sought the landlords’ signature since 2017 established a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the landlords to rebut the inference of discrimination. On the evidence accepted by the Circuit Court, Justice Bolger was satisfied that the landlords had not discharged that burden.
The order sends the appeal back to the Circuit Court for rehearing. The High Court made no finding on the amount of compensation or the adjudication officer’s jurisdiction to award compensation for the period at issue; those matters remain for the Circuit Court. No order was made concerning either side’s outlay, as both parties represented themselves.