The High Court has set aside the Residential Tenancies Board Tenancy Tribunal’s determination on the validity of a termination notice, ruling that the tribunal failed to give adequate reasons on key issues. The court did not decide whether the notice was valid or whether the landlords had penalised the tenants; it directed that the parties return for further submissions.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 12 July 2024, arose from the tenants’ statutory appeal on a point of law under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The tribunal had found that the rent charged was excessive and that the notice was valid. The landlords appealed the rent decision to the tribunal but accepted the overcharging finding there; their tribunal appeal concerned the notice.
The tenants had referred the rent dispute to the RTB in March 2023. The landlords were notified on 31 May, and served the notice on 9 June. The tenants alleged it was retaliation for their referral. The landlords acknowledged that the timing of the termination process was “reactionary”, while maintaining that they required the property for their own needs. The tribunal found the notice valid on the basis of a medical need for respite accommodation, but did not explain what use it understood was proposed or address the tenants’ allegation of penalisation.
Justice Simons said the tribunal needed to identify the intended use and decide whether it amounted to occupation as a dwelling under section 34. The possible uses had varied during the proceedings, including accommodation for a daughter attending college, overnight stays, and occasional respite use. The court also said the tribunal had to address whether the landlords genuinely intended the proposed use and whether the notice was served in retaliation for the rent referral.
The High Court held that the tribunal’s failure to state findings and reasons on those central issues was an error of law. It therefore set aside the part of the 10 January 2024 determination concerning the notice. The court did not determine the substantive legal questions about occupation or penalisation, saying the inadequate reasons prevented meaningful review.
The court’s conclusion remained provisional on what should follow. Justice Simons said he was not inclined to remit the matter to the RTB, but invited submissions on that approach. He also raised whether the rent award—€29,660.95, above the statutory €20,000 damages cap—could be affirmed despite not having been appealed by the landlords. The proceedings were listed for further submissions, including on costs. The separate judicial review proceedings were deferred.