The High Court dismissed Peter Nowak and Agnieszka Nowak’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a Residential Tenancies Board determination concerning their tenancy. The court did not decide the merits of their separate appeal against that determination.
The determination, issued on 12 February 2016 by the then Private Residential Tenancies Board, set a market rent for the tenancy and dealt with related matters. The applicants’ judicial review application sought to quash it. Justice Richard Humphreys said the application was filed within time.
The applicants raised four grounds: alleged breaches of tribunal procedure and the Residential Tenancies Act 2004; an asserted lack of a reasonable evidential basis; bias and prejudice; and fraud. The judge found no arguable basis for leave. He said the complaints about the rent, expenses and other aspects of the determination challenged its merits rather than its legality. He also said no facts supported the bias allegation. The fraud claim concerned a notification about an adjournment granted after a family emergency affecting the landlords’ agent; the judge said the material presented did not make it an arguable basis to quash the determination.
The court also noted that the applicants had appealed the determination to the High Court on a point of law on 10 March 2016 and had actively progressed that appeal. Justice Humphreys held that they could not actively pursue that appeal while also challenging the same decision through judicial review. He further said the statutory appeal was the more appropriate procedure.
The court amended the case title to substitute the Residential Tenancies Board for the former board, retain “Peter Nowak” as the first applicant’s name in the title, and add Andrea Hogan and Sinead Rossiter as notice parties. The judgment identifies Hogan and Rossiter as the applicants’ landlords. It dismissed the application for leave; it did not determine the separate appeal or the underlying tenancy dispute.
The judge directed the parties to be heard on whether an order should be considered to limit the applicants from making future frivolous applications. The judgment did not make such an order at that stage.