The High Court dismissed Jerrard Nestor’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) order requiring him to pay €910 to tenant Mr Tabuka after the tenancy was unlawfully terminated. The appeal was limited to questions of law, and the court did not reconsider the merits of the tenancy dispute.
The RTB’s determination ordered repayment of a €400 deposit, less €90 for unpaid rent, and a further €600 in damages. It followed an earlier decision by an RTB adjudicator, which Mr Nestor had appealed to the Board. The High Court appeal concerned the RTB determination of 27 September 2016.
Mr Nestor argued that the RTB lacked jurisdiction because the accommodation was part of his dwelling rather than a self-contained unit. The court rejected that ground because it had not been raised before the adjudicator or the RTB. Although the judge said the argument might have succeeded on the facts presented, it was a new challenge based on material not before the Board and could not be introduced in this appeal on a point of law.
He also argued there had been no binding tenancy agreement because Mr Tabuka had not paid four weeks’ rent in advance. The court said its task was not to decide which account was preferable, but to determine whether there was evidence capable of supporting the RTB’s finding. It identified evidence including a signed agreement for a six-month tenancy, payment of a €400 deposit, provision of a key and access to the property, and occupancy for up to a week. The court concluded that it could not say the RTB had no evidence for its decision and rejected this ground too.
The judgment noted that the signed agreement was not before the High Court or the RTB, although Mr Nestor said he had given it to the adjudicator. The court did not resolve the tenancy dispute afresh; it held that the evidence described was enough to sustain the Board’s finding under the narrow legal test.
The judge also criticised the cost of the appeal system. The hearing lasted about two hours, and the judgment said litigation in the High Court could expose a party to costs of several thousand euro over an award of €910. It observed that the 2004 Act directs appeals on points of law from RTB determinations to the High Court, and said the arrangement would remain unless the legislation changed. The court dismissed Mr Nestor’s application to set aside the determination order and described the cost disparity as regrettable.