The High Court has refused a tenant’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Tribunal determination concerning rent arrears and the termination of her tenancy in Phibsborough, Dublin 7. The court held that the Tribunal was entitled to proceed on the basis that Monopod Limited was her landlord. It did not determine the tenant’s allegation that the property had been transferred through a flawed sale.
The appeal, under section 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, concerned a Tribunal determination delivered on 25 May 2022. The Tribunal had found the termination notice valid and that the tenant owed €5,763.27 in rent arrears. In the High Court, the tenant focused on whether Monopod had proper title to the property and argued that section 110 of the Act prevented the Tribunal from dealing with the dispute.
The tenant alleged that the property had been sold without lawful authority by a receiver while the former landlord was unwell. She also cited what she described as irregularities in the sale. The court noted that these claims were assertions and that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that Monopod had acquired the property through a flawed sale process. The tenant accepted that Monopod was registered as owner, and no proceedings to challenge the register were shown to be under way.
The Tribunal had relied on evidence that the tenant paid rent to Monopod from around January 2020, identified it as her landlord in welfare-support paperwork, and received rent supplement on that basis. A Monopod director gave evidence that she was authorised to act for the company. The High Court found there was sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to treat Monopod as the person entitled to receive the rent and as a proper party to the tenancy dispute. It also held that the Tribunal could hear the director’s evidence and did not need to require proof of company board approval.
The judge said section 110 barred the Tribunal from drawing title to property into question. For this appeal, the Tribunal’s recognition of Monopod as landlord, based on the registration and tenancy evidence, did not amount to deciding the disputed title issue. The court left broader questions about how section 110 should be interpreted for a case in which they are fully argued.
The court refused the appeal. It directed that the matter be listed on 14 November 2023 for final orders and any issue of costs. Monopod had been notified of the appeal but did not attend the hearing. The court also declined the tenant’s request for an adjournment, which had been sought because of discussions about a possible local-authority purchase of the property; the court said it was unclear whether a purchase would occur or change the landlord’s position.