The Supreme Court allowed the Rent Tribunal’s appeal against a High Court award of damages to landlords Mark Beatty and Walter Beatty. The appeal succeeded on the ground of judicial immunity: the tribunal could not be held liable in ordinary negligence for the way it determined a rent while acting within its jurisdiction and in good faith.
The dispute concerned a controlled dwelling rented to notice party Francis McNally. The tribunal set rent at £300 a month in 1995. After a new application in July 2000, it determined a rent of £500 a month on 12 December 2000. The landlords challenged that determination by judicial review.
The High Court quashed the determination, finding procedural unfairness on three grounds: the tenant attended the tribunal’s inspection while the landlords were absent; the landlords were not given adequate time to respond to a valuation report submitted late by the tenant; and the tribunal had not given adequate reasons. The High Court later awarded damages based on ordinary negligence.
In the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Geoghegan said statutory tribunals exercising public duties are protected from ordinary negligence claims when acting bona fide within their jurisdiction. The court’s ruling addressed liability for damages; it did not undo the earlier judicial review order quashing the rent determination.
The judgment distinguished ordinary negligence from misfeasance in public office. The High Court had found no malice or improper intention, and the Supreme Court found no evidence of the subjective recklessness discussed in submissions. It therefore did not need to decide whether misfeasance claims can be brought against judges or statutory tribunals. The appeal was allowed only on the basis of judicial immunity. The court also left open the principles of Irish law governing recovery for economic loss in negligence.