The High Court refused a judicial review application by Donal O’Connor challenging decisions of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) and a PRTB Tribunal in a dispute involving Kieran Connell. It refused to extend the time for bringing the proceedings and said the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through statutory appeals.
Mr Justice John Hedigan delivered judgment on 25 June 2008. O’Connor had sought to quash an adjudicator’s decision dated 14 September 2005, a Tribunal decision dated 21 December 2005 and the Board’s decision to extend Connell’s time to make a complaint. He also sought to prevent enforcement of the resulting determination.
The judge said the extension of time granted when leave for judicial review was sought had been tentative. Because that application was made without hearing the respondent, the delay issue had to be reconsidered if raised at the hearing. The judge concluded that O’Connor had not given reasons explaining or justifying the delay. He noted that O’Connor knew of the extension decision by June 2005, about a year before issuing these proceedings, and refused the requested extension.
The judge also addressed the respondent’s argument that O’Connor should have used the appeal procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Section 88 allowed an appeal to the Circuit Court against a Board decision to extend time. Section 123 allowed a party to appeal a Tribunal determination to the High Court on a point of law.
The judgment records that O’Connor had not appealed the Board’s time-extension decision. He had pursued a section 123 appeal, but the Master of the High Court struck out those proceedings and O’Connor did not appeal that decision. The judge said the complaints made in the judicial review—including alleged failures to invite observations on the extension request, obtain signatures from all three Tribunal members, serve a sealed determination order and communicate the Tribunal decision within the required period—were points of law that could have been raised through the statutory appeal procedure.
The court refused the reliefs sought. Hedigan J said that even if he had extended time, he would still have refused relief because an adequate alternative remedy was available and had not been used. The judgment does not determine the underlying tenancy dispute or make findings on the merits of the applicant’s complaints.