The High Court has refused an appeal by two tenants against enforcement of an agreement requiring them to leave their Dalkey home, and granted the landlord’s application to enforce the PRTB determination incorporating that agreement. The judge said she would hear further argument on how long a stay should last to allow the tenants to gather their belongings and leave.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 7 December 2016 under section 124 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The High Court reviewed whether the statutory grounds for challenging enforcement were met; it did not rehear the underlying tenancy dispute or decide a fresh claim for damages.
At a PRTB hearing on 4 November 2015, the tenants and landlord reached a written agreement. It provided that the tenants would leave by 3 June 2016, continue paying rent of €1,600 a month until then, with one month’s rent waived, and receive their €2,000 deposit back subject to proper deductions. The landlord also agreed to reimburse them for an oven. The agreement described itself as a full and final settlement of all outstanding issues, including maintenance allegations, and recorded that the parties had been told about a 21-day cooling-off period.
The tenants later told the PRTB they had signed under duress and without legal advice, and asked it to reopen the matter. The Board declined. They did not leave on the agreed date and had not paid rent since June 2016. The judgment noted that their inability to pay arose from their circumstances, not wilful default. The tenants also raised allegations about the landlord’s conduct and the condition of the premises, including an HSE report documenting disrepair.
The judge found that the tenants had felt pressure, but said the options before them were limited by the landlord’s lawful right to recover the property after valid notice. She made no finding on whether the landlord had bullied or intimidated them. She was not satisfied that the absence of legal representation made the PRTB process fundamentally unfair. She also accepted that the adjudicator could not rule on damages without a formal claim before her, and found no procedural flaw in the adjudicator’s decision not to adjourn the hearing so such a claim could be filed.
The court held that the narrow statutory grounds for setting aside the PRTB determination had not been established. It refused the appeal and granted the landlord the relief sought. The judgment did not specify the further stay’s length; the judge reserved that question for argument.