The High Court allowed a tenant’s appeal against a Tenancy Tribunal decision that had upheld a notice ending his tenancy on the ground that the landlord intended to sell the property. The court ruled that the notice had to state that the landlord intended to enter a binding agreement for sale within three months after the tenancy ended.
The tenant had lived at the premises in Cabinteely with his family since 2006 under a Part 4 tenancy. The receiver, appointed over certain assets of Durkan Homes, served the notice on 11 June 2014, naming 3 October 2014 as the termination date. It said: “I require vacant possession of the above property as I intend to sell the property”.
An adjudicator found the notice valid in December 2014. The tenant appealed to the Tenancy Tribunal, which upheld that determination in June 2015. He then appealed to the High Court on a point of law, arguing that the notice did not meet the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 because it omitted the statutory three-month timeframe.
The High Court considered the requirements for notices ending a Part 4 tenancy under sections 34 and 62 of the Act. It held that both sections applied. Section 34 allows termination on specified grounds, including an intention to enter an enforceable agreement to transfer the landlord’s interest for full consideration within three months after termination. Section 62 requires a notice to state the reason for ending a tenancy lasting more than six months.
The court said the notice did not need to use the precise wording of the Act or include details such as the buyer or sale price. But it had to identify the statutory ground with sufficient accuracy. A general intention to sell was not enough: the landlord had to intend to bind himself to a sale within the three-month period, and the notice had to communicate that intention.
Evidence before the court was that the sale closed around 15 December 2014. The judgment said no issue arose about that fact, but the appeal concerned the legal sufficiency of the notice. The court did not decide a separate claim for damages or make an order concerning possession.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s determination was incorrect. It answered the legal question by stating that a notice relying on an intended sale must sufficiently identify an intention to conclude a sale contract within three months after the tenancy ends. The court noted that different considerations might apply where the intended sale covers a larger area than the tenancy premises; that situation did not arise in this case.