Judgment: 2011-07-19 · Court archive

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to finality of tenancy appeals

The Court upheld the refusal of leave to seek judicial review over a law making High Court decisions on tenancy tribunal appeals final and conclusive.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jack Canty (Applicant)
  • David Connolly
What

The Court upheld the refusal of leave to seek judicial review over a law making High Court decisions on tenancy tribunal appeals final and conclusive.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2011, the Court held that the High Court judge had acted within his discretion in refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The appeal concerned the refusal of leave, not a full judicial review hearing or a determination following such a hearing.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Jack Canty’s appeal against the refusal of leave to challenge the constitutionality of a provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 that makes High Court decisions on tenancy tribunal appeals “final and conclusive”.

In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2011, the Court held that the High Court judge had acted within his discretion in refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The appeal concerned the refusal of leave, not a full judicial review hearing or a determination following such a hearing.

Canty had sought a declaration that section 123(4) of the Act was unconstitutional. The provision states that the High Court’s determination of an appeal on a point of law from a Tenancy Tribunal decision is final and conclusive. The High Court refused leave on 17 December 2007, finding that Canty had not met the threshold for permission to bring the judicial review application.

The Supreme Court said the words “final and conclusive” were clear in the context of the statutory scheme. Under that scheme, a Tribunal determination could be appealed to the High Court on a point of law, while disputes of fact and merits were decided through the specialist process. The Court concluded that the provision fell within the exceptions to Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction permitted by Article 34.4.3º of the Constitution.

The Court also rejected Canty’s arguments that the section needed additional wording expressly stating that no appeal lay, or a proviso for constitutional validity questions. It said the Tribunal could not decide the validity of a law, so such a question could not arise in an appeal from the Tribunal to the High Court. The Court affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that section 123(4) did not breach the Constitution’s equality provision.

The judgment records that the tenancy dispute history involved Canty and his landlord, David Connolly, who was named as a notice party. It does not decide the underlying tenancy disputes in this appeal. The order was that the appeal be dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review