The High Court has dismissed Regina Fitzpatrick’s appeal against a Residential Tenancies Board tribunal determination that a notice ending her tenancy was valid. The tenancy determination remains in force.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the appeal, brought under section 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, was limited to a point of law. The court found that the discrimination argument Fitzpatrick advanced had not been raised before the Tenancy Tribunal, so it could not be introduced for the first time in the High Court appeal.
The tenancy was shared by Fitzpatrick and Aston Dendrick, who was not a party to the appeal. The landlord, Sinéad Brett, was a notice party. The judgment states that the landlord and tenants entered into the tenancy in July 2017, with monthly rent of €1,470.
A rent-arrears warning notice was served on 1 August 2021, stating that €4,223 was owed. A notice of termination followed on 31 August, with a termination date of 30 September 2021. At the tribunal hearing in June 2022, Fitzpatrick accepted that she was in arrears and apologised, explaining that she expected to pay once inheritance proceeds were released. The tribunal found the notice valid and recorded that both parties agreed arrears had reached €14,311.62 by the hearing.
Fitzpatrick’s High Court argument relied on a WhatsApp exchange dated 3 March 2022, in which the landlord was recorded as saying she would not accept housing assistance payments. That exchange came months after the notice had been served and the tenancy had ended. The judgment also notes that the landlord had provided Fitzpatrick with a letter for social welfare purposes in December 2021.
The judge said the later exchange could not affect whether the earlier termination notice was valid. Under the statutory scheme, arrears had to be cleared within 28 days of the warning notice, and the tribunal could not consider remedial action taken after service of a termination notice. He also said the Tenancy Tribunal and the RTB had no role in deciding a claim for a remedy under the Equal Status Act; such a claim belongs before the Workplace Relations Commission. The court added that the evidence did not establish that the landlord had terminated the tenancy because of housing assistance.
The judge refused Fitzpatrick’s request for a three-month adjournment, citing the medical evidence, the expected delay and the measures offered to facilitate remote participation. Fitzpatrick did not attend the hearing in person or remotely. The judge nevertheless considered the appeal on the filed affidavits and exhibits rather than dismissing it for non-attendance.
The appeal was dismissed. The court listed the case for 25 May 2023 to hear any costs applications; the judgment does not state the outcome of those applications.