By Ruth Mercer
The High Court has rejected a tenant’s challenge to an RTB decision upholding the termination of her tenancy at an apartment on O’Connell Street in Waterford.
Maria Ulemu Chimwala appealed on a point of law against a Residential Tenancies Board determination concerning Apartment 8, Mill House, 72/73 O’Connell Street. She has lived there since July 2019 and was paying rent of €900 per month after an earlier rate of €850.
The dispute centred on a termination notice served by landlord Vadims Abrosimovs on 27 November 2023. When the Tenancy Tribunal considered the case, it had only the first page and mistakenly believed the notice was unsigned. It nevertheless ruled that the apparent absence of a signature was a permissible “slip or omission” under section 64A of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and did not invalidate the notice.
An unusual fact later emerged: Chimwala had actually been served with a signed two-page notice. The High Court nevertheless assessed the legal issue on the documentation that had been before the tribunal.
Ms Justice Nessa Cahill held that section 64A can apply where a notice fails to comply with one of the formal requirements in section 62, including the requirement for a landlord’s signature, provided the omission does not materially undermine the notice and it otherwise complies with the Act.
The judge found no legal error in the tribunal’s application of that provision. She also rejected arguments based on Chimwala’s lack of legal representation, alleged problems with the authenticity of the signature and the landlord’s use of another person to assist with paperwork.
The appeal was refused in full. The ruling leaves the RTB determination intact, including its finding that the termination notice was valid. The judge’s provisional view was that Chimwala should pay the RTB’s costs, with that question listed for further consideration on 17 February 2026.