The Supreme Court rejected Jack Canty’s challenge to the Private Residential Tenancies Board’s decision to prosecute him, and ruled that an interim direction can remain enforceable after a final determination has been made.
In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2011, Mr Justice Fennelly said the Court would uphold the High Court decision refusing judicial review. The Board had issued three summonses alleging that Canty failed to comply with a determination order: by not paying rent arrears, not providing his PPS number and not paying rent from March 2006. The judgment concerns the Board’s decision to issue those summonses; it does not decide the criminal allegations at trial.
Canty argued that the tenancy was unregistered when the disputes were referred to the Board, that the tribunal’s determination was not shown to be a majority decision, and that the Board had to pursue civil enforcement before bringing criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected those grounds. It said the tenancy was registered before the Board took substantive steps on the disputes, and that the evidence before the High Court showed the tribunal’s decision was unanimous. The Court also held that the Act allows prosecution without first exhausting civil enforcement.
The Court further upheld the refusal to add a challenge concerning authentication of the Board’s seal. It said any issue about the order’s evidential admissibility could be raised at the prosecution hearing and did not justify preventing the prosecution at this stage.
In a separate case stated, the High Court asked whether a landlord could seek Circuit Court enforcement of a Board interim direction after a final determination had issued. The Supreme Court answered yes. It held that the statutory definition of a determination order includes an interim direction, and found no provision that causes such a direction to disappear when a final determination is made.
The Court recognised that an interim direction and final order could overlap. It said the Circuit Court must consider compliance and make an order that is just and appropriate, avoiding duplicate enforcement. The ruling answered the legal question referred to it; the source does not state the ultimate result of the landlord’s enforcement application.