The High Court has dismissed a tenant’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board decision upholding the termination of his tenancy at 82 Woodford, Brewery Road, Stillorgan.
Roman Pszonka’s tenancy began in December 2018. Landlord David Whelan served a notice of termination on December 30, 2022, stating that he intended to enter into a binding agreement to sell the property within nine months after the tenancy ended. The termination date was June 30, 2023.
Pszonka remained in occupation and challenged the landlord’s position during RTB proceedings. He argued, among other things, that an earlier conversation amounted to a binding oral agreement that Whelan would not sell while he remained a tenant. He also said the landlord had not taken sufficient concrete steps towards a sale.
The RTB Tribunal rejected those arguments and found the notice valid. It accepted evidence that Whelan’s circumstances had changed, including family health and bereavement issues and financial considerations. It also considered evidence that he had discussed a sale with estate agents and had a solicitor available to handle it.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held that the High Court appeal was limited to points of law and could not simply revisit the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence.
She found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the statutory test. A landlord must genuinely intend, when serving the notice, to enter a binding sale agreement within nine months. Signed estate-agency or solicitor contracts are not required. Here, there was substantial evidence beyond the statutory declaration supporting that intention.
The court also rejected Pszonka’s claims that the RTB case was prematurely referred two days before the termination date, that the hybrid hearing was unlawful or unfair, and that Whelan had breached his obligation to allow peaceful occupation.
The appeal was dismissed. The RTB finding that Pszonka was overholding therefore remains in place, subject to any consequential orders still to be settled.