The High Court has cancelled a €20,000 award to Tetyana and Vassyl Soroka in their tenancy dispute with Tuath Housing Association and remitted the case to the Residential Tenancies Board Tribunal for rehearing and a decision in accordance with law.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens ruled that the Tribunal had failed to decide whether Tuath breached its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement or residential tenancy legislation. Instead, it imposed a duty on Tuath to pursue the apartment block’s management company with sufficient force to secure repairs. The judge held that the legislation did not impose such a general duty to press a management company or sue others over building defects.
The Sorokas have lived since 2006 in a ground-floor apartment on Macken Street, Dublin 2, which Tuath lets to them. The judgment says the apartment has been affected by damp and mould from water penetration. Design and construction faults have allowed rainwater into the block, and repairs to the apartment’s walls and ceiling alone would not resolve the problem. At the time of the Tribunal hearing, repairs to stop the ingress had not been carried out.
The Sorokas complained to the RTB in 2021. An adjudicator concluded that the water ingress came from a structural issue outside Tuath’s control and that Tuath had no power to carry out the repair, so it had not breached its statutory or contractual obligations. The Sorokas appealed to the Tribunal, relying on a clause in their letting agreement requiring Tuath to keep the portions of the apartment for which it was responsible in good repair.
The Tribunal awarded them €20,000, finding that Tuath had a duty to “do its best” to procure a remedy and had failed to do so. Tuath appealed to the High Court on a point of law.
Justice Owens said the Tribunal had to determine whether Tuath breached its contractual or statutory repair duties. The Tribunal instead proceeded on an assumption that Tuath had a duty to make efforts to secure repairs to the block, without giving the parties an opportunity to address that approach. The judge said that course was not permissible.
The judgment did not decide whether Tuath breached its repair duties, or the extent of a landlord’s statutory obligation where an apartment’s disrepair results from defects elsewhere in a block. The judge said that legal issue had not been argued and remained to be decided. The Tribunal must reconsider the dispute on remittal.
The High Court also left appeal costs unresolved. The parties are to file short legal submissions, and the costs issue will be listed for an oral hearing.