The High Court refused an application for leave to bring judicial review and an extension of time to challenge a Residential Tenancy Board decision dated 20 June 2018. The decision followed a dispute involving rent arrears and alleged overholding at a property in Swords, Co Dublin.
The applicant, Gbolahan Ayeni, sought to quash the board’s decision. The landlords were identified in the judgment as Keith and Jacqueline Screeney, but were not participating in the judicial review. Kathleen Screeney and Keith Screeney were named as notice parties.
The board’s decision was dispatched on 20 June 2018. The judgment said an appeal under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 had to be brought within 21 days, with no provision for extending that period. Ayeni said he was outside Ireland from 21 June until 10 September 2018 after travelling for his mother’s burial, and that he found the board’s letter when cleaning his home on 16 September. The judge noted that he had not told the board he would be away or arranged for the decision to be sent to him by email or forwarded from his home.
The application first came before Judge Noonan on 5 November 2018 for the purposes of calculating the period at issue. The ordinary three-month period had expired around 20 September, but the application was not brought before the court until nearly two months after Ayeni returned. The judge also noted that a later affidavit dated 20 February 2019 set out substantial grounds but did not explain the additional delay after his return.
The proposed challenge argued that the board lacked authority because the tenancy was said to have begun in 2003, and because of an alleged agreement that the 2004 Act would not apply. The judge said the Act covers tenancies created before or after it came into force, and that the alleged agreement had not been raised before the tribunal. Other proposed grounds concerned prior board decisions, rent arrears, rent review, set-off, fairness and hearing procedures. The judgment found these grounds either unarguable, unsupported, or matters going to the merits of the board’s decision rather than its lawfulness.
The judge also considered the board’s evidence despite Ayeni’s objections to the form of its affidavits, finding no prejudice had been claimed. The court’s decision was limited to whether leave and extra time to seek judicial review should be granted. It did not determine the underlying tenancy dispute anew. Having considered the delay, the alternative appeal route and the proposed grounds, the court refused both leave and an extension of time.