The High Court has ruled that a purported appeal by Maciej Olaszewski against a Residential Tenancies Board determination was issued outside the statutory 21-day period and that the period cannot be extended. The court said the application must fail at the preliminary stage; it did not consider the merits of the underlying tenancy dispute.
The RTB determination order was made on 31 January 2024 and issued to the parties on 6 February. The High Court judgment said an appeal therefore had to issue by 27 February.
Olaszewski served a notice of motion on the RTB and the High Court Central Office on 23 February. But the court found that serving the document did not amount to issuing proceedings. The Central Office date stamp and a court search record showed an issue date of 17 June 2024, months after the deadline.
Olaszewski, who represented himself, said he had served the notice within the deadline and that delays in registration were beyond his control. He also said an incorrect stamp duty fee had led to the documents being returned, and that he corrected the error and paid the required fee. He disputed parts of the notice as received by the Central Office, saying an official had made amendments. The judgment recorded those submissions but did not find that the service date brought the appeal in time.
The RTB argued that the appeal was out of time and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to extend the deadline. The judge applied an earlier High Court decision concerning section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, finding that the statutory 21-day limit was absolute. Although Order 84C of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides for extensions in some appeals, the judge found it did not permit an extension in this case.
The court determined the preliminary issue against Olaszewski and said the application must fail in limine. The underlying challenge to the RTB determination was not decided. The judge’s proposed order reflected that finding. Final orders, consequential matters and costs were left for a further mention on 13 March 2025. The judge stated that costs would ordinarily follow the event but described that as a provisional view, subject to hearing from the parties.