The High Court has awarded a receiver the costs of certain procedural attendances in a failed statutory appeal, but not the costs of fully participating in the appeal hearing.
Mr Justice Baker ruled on an application by Tom Kavanagh, the notice party, for costs against Michael Doyle, the applicant. The underlying appeal challenged a determination by the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB). In a substantive judgment delivered on 10 November 2015, the High Court had refused to set aside the board’s decision. The board had already been awarded its costs of the appeal.
The PRTB’s Tenancy Tribunal had determined the dispute on 13 June 2014. It ordered Mr Doyle to pay rent arrears and leave the residential premises by a specified date. The landlord’s interest in the premises was held by a limited liability company, and Mr Kavanagh had been appointed receiver over certain assets of that company, including the premises.
The appeal had followed an incorrect procedure and was struck out by the High Court Master in October 2014 after Mr Doyle did not attend. A later order regularised the pleadings to some extent and allowed the PRTB and the receiver to file statements of opposition. The receiver sought all reserved costs and the costs of the hearing, arguing that he had a legitimate interest to protect and had made submissions on issues the board had not addressed in the same way.
Justice Baker said the receiver had a financial or commercial interest, but that alone did not establish an entitlement to the costs of full participation. In this statutory appeal, the PRTB was the primary defender of its decision. The judge found the receiver’s interest in upholding the determination coincided with the board’s, and that his arguments could have been addressed through engagement with the PRTB before the hearing. The judge also said the appeal court could not make primary findings of fact.
The judgment said the identity of the landlord was not properly before the court, and the court had no jurisdiction to decide that factual question in the appeal. It also recorded that the Tribunal had correctly acted within its jurisdiction in finding that the receiver was validly appointed and that the landlord was a corporate entity.
Justice Baker concluded that the receiver was not a necessary party as a litigant and declined to award him the costs of full participation. However, procedural errors by Mr Doyle had caused additional costs for the receiver in attending before the Master and dealing with the procedural difficulties. The judge ruled that the receiver was entitled to the costs of those attendances and of the hearing before Justice Binchy. The precise form of the order remained to be settled after submissions from counsel.