The Supreme Court has allowed Jack Canty’s appeal on whether he could challenge a High Court costs order arising from a residential tenancy dispute. It directed that the matter be listed for a further hearing on the merits. The Court did not decide that the costs order was wrong.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 30 April 2008, concerned the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under section 123(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The Court had already ruled on 2 April that it had no jurisdiction to hear Canty’s appeal against the High Court’s determination of points of law arising from tribunal orders. That ruling was based on the Act’s provision that the High Court’s determination on the point of law “shall be final and conclusive”.
The issue reserved for decision was whether Canty could separately appeal the costs order made by Ms Justice Laffoy in the High Court. That order awarded costs against him in respect of the respondent and notice party. Canty argued that the Act did not clearly exclude an appeal confined to costs.
The dispute began after David Connolly agreed to let Canty a dwelling house in Crosshaven, County Cork, under a tenancy agreement dated 24 September 2004. Disputes arose in 2005 and were considered by the Private Residential Tenancies Board. The Board formalised determinations in orders dated 19 April and 6 October 2006. Canty challenged those orders in the High Court on points of law.
The Supreme Court said section 123 provided a limited appeal to the High Court on a point of law, rather than an appeal on the tribunal’s findings on the merits or facts. It considered whether the statutory finality provision also excluded a further appeal about costs.
Mr Justice Kearns noted that the Constitution generally gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over High Court decisions, while legislation may create exceptions. He compared the wording of other statutes that expressly made High Court decisions final, and said section 123(4) was less clear because it tied finality specifically to “the point of law concerned”.
The Court concluded that legislation removing even a limited appeal on costs must make that intention clear. Citing *The People (Attorney General) v Conmey*, it said restrictions on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction must be clear and unambiguous. It therefore allowed the appeal on the jurisdictional question and ordered that the matter be listed for a further hearing on the merits. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later hearing.