The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Amy Hyland against a Tenancy Tribunal determination concerning her occupation of a home at 31 Carrigmore Crescent, Saggart.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered the judgment on 6 October 2017. The appeal, brought under section 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, was limited to points of law. The court dismissed it; it did not make a new tenancy determination.
The dispute followed the appointment of bank receivers over properties owned by Hyland’s stepfather, Denis Scriven. The receivers registered the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). After Hyland did not pay rent to them, they sought possession. An adjudicator directed her to leave and pay €7,540 in arrears. The Tenancy Tribunal later affirmed the termination notice, directed her to vacate within 56 days of its order, and set arrears at €8,060, payable by instalments.
Hyland argued that the Act did not apply because she was a “child” of the landlord, that the tenancy registration was invalid, and that the Tribunal should have adjourned or stayed its proceedings pending a separate High Court claim by her mother to an interest in the property.
The judge held that “child” in the Act did not include a stepchild. He pointed to other provisions that distinguish a child from a stepchild, foster child and adopted child. The Tribunal’s finding that Hyland’s mother was not a joint landlord was a factual finding open to it on the evidence, the judge said, and could not be challenged in this appeal on a point of law.
On registration, the judge said the receivers had sufficient interest in the property to register the tenancy. He also said a challenge to the RTB’s decision to accept the registration should have been brought by judicial review. The judge noted that the receivers had been unable to ascertain the tenancy’s start date after Hyland and Scriven did not provide the information.
The separate claim by Hyland’s mother had not been the subject of an adjournment or stay application to the Tribunal. The judge held that the issue could not form the basis of this appeal because it had not been raised with or decided by the Tribunal.
The judgment also noted that Hyland’s notice of motion did not identify a point of law as required by court rules. The judge nevertheless considered the substantive arguments and dismissed the appeal.