The High Court has ordered each party to bear its own costs after dismissing a tenant’s appeal over the validity of a termination notice. It also declined her request for three months to leave the property, relying on the time already available and the landlord’s undertaking to allow 28 days after the court order was perfected.
The costs ruling was delivered electronically by Mr Justice Barr on 23 April 2021. The underlying appeal, brought by Aldona Stulpinaite against the Residential Tenancies Board, challenged on a point of law a tribunal decision that upheld a termination notice served by landlord Michael Whelan. The appeal had already been dismissed in a substantive judgment on 12 March 2021. The tenant was unsuccessful, and the determination order was not varied.
The tenant sought a further three months to vacate and asked to recover her appeal costs, arguing that the case raised issues of public importance. The Board and the landlord opposed both requests. They argued that the court could not extend the time in the determination order and that the appeal concerned the tenant’s individual circumstances, not wider public issues. The landlord said he had undertaken to allow her 28 days from perfection of the court order to leave.
The judge did not decide whether the court had jurisdiction to extend the time in the determination order. He said it was unnecessary to resolve that question because the period since the substantive judgment, combined with the landlord’s 28-day undertaking, gave the tenant a reasonable time to seek alternative accommodation.
The court rejected the argument that the tenant should receive costs as a public interest litigant. It found that the appeal did not raise novel issues of statutory or constitutional interpretation of exceptional public importance. The judge also accepted that the landlord had a sufficient interest in the appeal to participate and seek costs as a notice party.
However, the judge considered the parties’ circumstances before deciding costs. He noted that the tenant had lived in the apartment for 15 years, worked as a child minder in Inchicore and had gross income of about €21,800. She received Housing Assistance Payment and was on the social housing list at low priority. The Tribunal had awarded her €7,500 for the landlord’s breach of an obligation to keep the property in adequate condition; that part of the decision was not appealed.
The judge concluded that making the tenant pay the Board’s and landlord’s costs could leave her repaying the debt for much of, or possibly all, her life. The court dismissed the appeal, ordered each party to bear its own appeal costs, and directed the parties to file their written submissions in the High Court Central Office within four weeks under Practice Direction HC 101.