The High Court has dismissed Patrick Kelly’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) decision that a notice ending his tenancy at an apartment in Rathcoole, Co Dublin, was valid.
In a judgment delivered on 6 November 2018, Ms Justice O’Regan found that the RTB had correctly interpreted the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The appeal, brought under section 123 of the Act, challenged the Board’s decision of 23 June 2017. The court did not set aside that decision and held that the notice had been given in accordance with the Act.
Mr Kelly’s tenancy began on 20 October 2012, with three successive one-year agreements, according to the judgment. The landlord, Eugene O’Reilly, served a termination notice on 21 December 2016, set to expire on 19 April 2017. The RTB had found the notice valid following hearings in March and May 2017.
The central issue was whether the notice had to state a reason for ending the tenancy. The judge said the parties accepted that a further Part 4 tenancy began on 20 October 2016. Under the statutory provisions she considered, that tenancy ran until the notice expired in April 2017—six months or one day less. As it was not a period of more than six months, the requirement to give reasons under section 62(1)(e) did not apply.
The judgment acknowledged that wording in the RTB’s written material was “difficult, and somewhat awkward or ambiguous at best”. It also recorded that the notice contained an incorrect statement of law. However, the judge concluded that a reason was not required and that an incorrect or unnecessary reason did not invalidate the notice in these circumstances. She found no error of law in the RTB’s decision.
Mr Kelly also raised a preliminary dispute about when the RTB’s statement of opposition and supporting affidavit had been served. The judge said the conflicting accounts were not established by affidavit. Exercising the court’s power to extend time, she allowed service until 5pm on 9 October 2017 to resolve that issue.
The court’s order was to dismiss the appeal. The judgment determined the statutory validity of this termination notice; it did not make a separate finding about possession or enforcement.