The High Court has refused an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings arising from a tenancy determination, later court proceedings and a Workplace Relations Commission decision. Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan said the applicant had not shown an arguable ground for relief against any respondent.
The case followed a 2019 notice of termination served by the applicant’s landlord, who said he intended to sell a dwelling on South Circular Road, Dublin 8. The applicant challenged the notice through the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). In August 2021, a three-member Tenancy Tribunal found the notice valid and gave her 35 days to leave. It concluded that the law required an intention to sell, rather than a completed sale within the specified period; if no sale was concluded within the relevant period, the landlord was required to offer the tenant a tenancy.
The applicant’s subsequent statutory appeals against the Tribunal determination were dismissed after she missed the statutory time limit. In a separate complaint alleging discrimination by the RTB, a WRC adjudication officer declined in February 2023 to extend the time for referral or waive a notification requirement. The judgment records that the applicant did not appeal that decision under the available statutory procedure.
The applicant then sought judicial review, raising, among other matters, alleged unfair procedures at the RTB, the High Court decision in an earlier appeal, enforcement proceedings, the WRC decision and constitutional concerns. The judge said the application had been opened in March 2023, well outside the three-month judicial review period for challenging the 2021 RTB determination. The applicant had not sought an extension or provided affidavit evidence establishing an arguable basis for one. The judge also said statutory appeals were the appropriate remedy for challenging the RTB and WRC decisions, but the available appeal routes had not been used within time.
The judge said judicial review was not available before one High Court judge to challenge alleged procedural unfairness in proceedings before another judge of the same court. As for the pending District Court enforcement case, she identified no arguable basis to intervene before it had been heard. She noted that the District Court could refuse enforcement on specified substantial grounds, including procedural unfairness or a manifestly erroneous decision.
The court did not determine any possible legal aid claim, which was not before it, and found no stateable constitutional challenge as the application was framed. It refused leave to proceed by judicial review. The ruling was on permission to bring proceedings; it did not decide the pending enforcement application.