The High Court has allowed a tenant’s appeal against a District Court order to proceed, finding an arguable case that the Residential Tenancies Tribunal failed to provide fair procedures when deciding whether his tenancy had been terminated.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2024, Mr Justice Cregan extended Kenneth Donfield’s time to appeal. He remitted the matter to the Circuit Court for a full appeal against the District Court’s decision. The High Court did not decide whether Donfield received the notice of termination or determine the merits of his appeal.
Rathdrinagh Land Limited had sought to enforce a Tribunal decision that Donfield’s tenancy was terminated. The dispute turned on whether the former landlord, John Shields, served Donfield with a termination notice in May 2018. Donfield said he did not receive it; Shields said he handed it to him.
At an earlier Tribunal hearing, Shields did not attend. The Tribunal accepted his affidavit stating that he had personally served the notice, while Donfield gave evidence and was cross-examined. The affidavit referred to service on 4 May 2008, rather than 2018. The Tribunal ultimately found that the notice had been served.
The District Court later ordered Donfield to give Rathdrinagh vacant possession, with a six-month stay. Donfield filed a Circuit Court appeal notice within time but did not submit the required statutory declaration about service in time. The Circuit Court refused to extend the deadline for the appeal, finding no arguable ground. Donfield appealed that refusal to the High Court.
The High Court heard evidence from both Donfield and Shields but said it was not its role, or that of the lower courts, to re-assess the evidence underlying the Tribunal’s decision. The issue at this stage was whether Donfield had an arguable appeal on one of the limited grounds under section 124 of the Residential Tenancies Act, including failure to comply with procedural fairness.
Justice Cregan found that the Tribunal had relied on Shields’s affidavit on the central disputed issue without making him available for cross-examination, while Donfield was questioned at length. He concluded that this disparity gave Donfield an arguable ground that fair procedures had not been followed. The ruling concerns the threshold for allowing the appeal to proceed; it does not set aside the District Court order or decide the underlying service dispute.