The High Court has ruled that a landlord’s notice ending a Part 4 tenancy had to state a reason for the termination. It remitted the tenant’s complaint to the Private Residential Tenancies Board for a Tenancy Tribunal to reconsider it afresh.
Mary Dunivya began renting a dwelling from Mr Gibson on 27 November 2010. Her tenancy became a Part 4 tenancy on 27 May 2011, with the initial four-year period due to end on 26 November 2014. On 18 June 2014, Mr Gibson served a notice requiring her to leave by that date. The notice gave 166 days, exceeding the 112-day notice period required by law, but did not state a reason.
Ms Dunivya challenged the notice before the Board. After an adjudicator found it complied with the law, she appealed to a Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted that the notice did not meet the requirement in section 62(1)(e) to state a reason, but found that no reason was needed under section 34(b). She appealed that point of law to the High Court.
Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the requirements in Part 5 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 applied in addition to the rules for ending a Part 4 tenancy. The notice therefore had to state a reason. The High Court appeal was confined to a point of law; the judge said Ms Dunivya’s other complaints about her neighbours, a rent book and alleged conduct by the landlord were outside the appeal’s scope.
The court did not itself decide whether the notice was valid or cancel the earlier determination. It remitted the proceedings to the Board to convene a Tenancy Tribunal to reconsider the complaint in light of the judgment and any further representations from Ms Dunivya or Mr Gibson.
The judgment also addressed section 64A, inserted into the 2004 Act by the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 and in effect from 8 January 2016. That provision allows an adjudicator or tribunal to decide that a slip or omission does not by itself invalidate a notice if it caused no material prejudice and the notice otherwise complied with the Act. The judge said the tribunal might consider using it. He expressed the view that the missing reason had not caused the type of prejudice covered by the provision and that the notice appeared otherwise compliant, while leaving the decision to the tribunal.