The High Court declined to make an order enforcing a tenancy determination against McGinley Construction Limited, saying enforcement under section 124 of the Residential Tenancy Acts was a matter for the District Court. It also directed that there be no order as to costs.
In a judgment delivered on 7 April 2017, Mr Justice Eagar addressed outstanding requests following an earlier decision in an appeal brought by Jacek Snochowski against the Private Residential Tenancies Board and McGinley Construction Limited. The earlier ruling held that the construction company was entitled to appeal the adjudicated report and that both respondents were entitled to fair procedures. The court had refused the leave sought in the notice of motion.
Snochowski’s counsel asked the High Court to require the company to comply with the determination order, including paying €2,496.95. Counsel argued that the High Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to make an order under section 124 and avoid a separate District Court application. He also sought costs related to such an application and asked the High Court to assess them.
The judge declined to make an order under section 124, stating that the High Court would not interfere with the District Court’s jurisdiction. Although the judgment noted that costs in the District Court are measured by reference to that court’s rules, the judge said that was not a matter for the High Court.
The appellant also sought costs, or a contribution towards them, from the Board. Alternatively, his counsel argued there should be no costs order, or that any costs awarded to the Board should be paid by the construction company rather than Snochowski. Counsel said the appeal raised issues of public importance concerning tenancy registration, procedural fairness and statutory interpretation. He also said that success would have increased the determination award from €2,496.95 to €10,000, and that legal representation costs in an appeal of this kind could exceed €7,305.
The Board’s counsel argued that costs should follow the event, which was the refusal of the relief sought. The judge said the case did not fall within the approach to costs taken in a cited mental health case. The court made no order as to costs.