The High Court has dismissed Michael Hoey’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board determination upholding a notice to terminate his tenancy at a dwelling in Portarlington, County Laois.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 2 April 2019. The appeal was on a point of law following decisions by an adjudicator and the Tenancy Tribunal. The judge concluded that Mr Hoey had not raised a point of law that would justify interfering with the Tribunal’s decision.
Mr Hoey entered a one-year tenancy with the property owner, Paul Scannell, on 22 April 2010. The judgment says that tenancy continued and became a Part 4 tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, followed by a further Part 4 tenancy. The court held that the relevant four-year periods ran from the tenancy’s commencement, expiring on 21 April 2014 and 21 April 2018 respectively.
A receiver over certain assets of Mr Scannell, including the dwelling, served a termination notice in October 2016. The notice stated that the landlord intended to sell the dwelling for full consideration within three months after the tenancy ended. It provided 172 days’ notice, exceeding the statutory minimum of 168 days, and was accompanied by a statutory declaration of intention to sell.
Mr Hoey argued that the tenancy could not be ended before the further Part 4 period expired. The judge rejected that interpretation, finding that section 34 of the Act permits early termination for specified reasons, including an intended sale, where the required notice is given.
The judgment also rejected a challenge that the notice was legally defective because it did not include the words in section 34 referring to the accompanying statutory declaration. Mr Hoey had not raised that point before the Tribunal and had accepted the notice’s validity there. The court said the point could not be raised for the first time on an appeal confined to issues considered by the Tribunal. It added that the Act did not require those words to appear in the notice where the declaration accompanied it.
Mr Hoey further claimed that correspondence indicating an intention to sell with him as a sitting tenant gave him rights in the property or created a binding contract. The court found no basis for those claims. His alleged acceptance of the proposal had not been before the Tribunal and could not be considered on appeal; the judgment also said there was no consideration to support a contract. The court dismissed the appeal.