Alsaleh v The Residential Tenancies Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms. Justice Siobhán phelan
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 702
• Docket Number: Record No. 2024/457 MCA

In the Matter of Section 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Acts, 2004–2021

Between

Abdallah Alsaleh

Appellant

and

The Residential Tenancies Board

Respondent

Sharon McDonnell and Wayne Frarey

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 702

Record No. 2024/457 MCA

THE HIGH COURT

Tenancy – Question of law – Residential Tenancies Act 2004 s. 123 – Applicant appealing against a determination order of the respondent – Whether an error of law had been established

Facts: The appellant, Mr Alsaleh, appealed to the High Court pursuant to s. 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 against a determination order of the respondent, the Residential Tenancies Board, dated 14 August 2024, embodying the terms of a determination of a Tenancy Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding a dispute between the appellant (the landlord) and the notice parties, Ms McDonnell and Mr Frarey (the tenants), arising from a tenancy at and addressed in County Kildare. The question of law at the heart of the appeal was whether the Tribunal wrongly assumed jurisdiction in reliance on the definition of “landlord” in s. 5 of the 2004 Act on the basis of a finding on the evidence that an oral tenancy agreement had been entered into and rent had been paid and without requiring it to be established that the contracting party owned the property.

Held by Phelan J that, in Stulpinaite v RTB [2021] IEHC 178, the High Court (Barr J)reiterated that the principles applicable to an appeal on a point of law were set out by the Supreme Court in Fitzgibbon v The Law Society [2014] IESC 48 where Clarke J cited Deely v Information Commissioner [2001] IEHC 91. Recognising that it has no jurisdiction in respect of matters of title, the Tribunal found, correctly in Phelan J's view, that proof of ownership is irrelevant to the exercise by it of its jurisdiction under the 2004 Act where it was satisfied on the evidence that a tenancy existed. Phelan J held that this was a conclusion which was sustainable on the evidence and a finding within jurisdiction. Phelan J held that the definition of “landlord” under s. 5 of the 2004 Act is in no way dependent on ownership but on whether the person involved in the dispute referred was entitled to receive rent. Phelan J held that the Tribunal made findings of fact in that regard, based on the entirety of the evidence as it was entitled to do, which included incomplete evidence of ownership. Phelan J held that it had not been demonstrated that the findings made were not findings which it was open to the Tribunal to make on the evidence before it.

Phelan J held that as no error of law had been established and the Tribunal made its decision having heard evidence from both parties and based on its assessment of that evidence and in circumstances where there was an adequacy of evidence to support the Tribunal’s conclusion, the appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Siobhán phelan, delivered on the 8 ^th day of December, 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 . This is an appeal brought by the Appellant pursuant to s. 123 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004 (as amended) (hereinafter the “RTA 2004”) against a Determination Order of the Respondent dated the 14 ^th of August, 2024, embodying the terms of a determination of a Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter “the Tribunal”) regarding a dispute (reference TR0224-007198) between the Appellant (landlord) and the Notice Parties (tenants) arising from a tenancy at and addressed in County Kildare (hereinafter “the Dwelling”).

2 . The question of law at the heart of this appeal is whether the Tribunal wrongly assumed jurisdiction in reliance on the definition of “ landlord” in s. 5 of the RTA 2004 on the basis of a finding on the evidence that an oral tenancy agreement had been entered into and rent had been paid and without requiring it to be established that the contracting party owned the property.

BACKGROUND

3 . The relevant timeline as apparent from the pleadings is as follows:

10 July 2022: Tenants claim tenancy commenced.

31 Oct 2023: Alleged illegal eviction (locks changed and another person takes up occupation).

01 Nov 2023: Tenants filed RTB dispute application.

18 Dec 2023: Adjudication—RTB found no jurisdiction on the basis that evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that rent or deposit had been paid or a tenancy agreement entered into.

13 Feb 2024: Tenants appealed adjudication finding.

19 Feb 2024: Appeal approved for processing by RTB.

30 May & 09 July 2024: Tribunal hearings ( de novo determination on the evidence at hearings).

13 July 2024: Tribunal issued determination.

14 Aug 2024: Determination Order—€7,500 damages awarded.

19 Aug 2024: Determination Order and Report issued to the parties.

06 Sept 2024: High Court appeal lodged by Appellant with a first return date on the Notice of Motion for the 13 ^th of November, 2024.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

4 . The evidence heard by the Tribunal is summarised in the Tribunal decision but, as is common in appeals on a point of law in respect of a Tribunal decision, a full transcript of the Tribunal hearing is exhibited by the Respondent.

5 . From the contemporaneous record of proceedings provided by the transcript, the only matter which was agreed as between the parties was the location of the Dwelling.

6 . Both tenants gave evidence in support of their appeal before the Tribunal. The First Notice Party explained that her partner, the Second Notice Party, was a patient of the Appellant who was a medical doctor. She said that she met the Appellant in his surgery when attending with her partner and a conversation arose about accommodation. She said that he told them that he had a house to let. It transpired that the house was adjacent to the Appellant's surgery.

7 . The First Notice Party described her delight on viewing the house and the offer to let it to them. It was their first home together. She told the Tribunal that on or about the 10 ^th of July, 2022, she left €2,600 (one month's rent plus deposit) at the Appellant's surgery and received the keys in return. She also told the Tribunal that the Appellant purchased white goods for the Dwelling which were delivered in July, 2022, just after they moved in and while they were living at the Dwelling. She referred to electricity receipts to demonstrate the Appellant's knowledge of and agreement to the Tenancy as evidenced by the transfer of the utility account into their own name after Christmas 2022, despite the Appellant's contention that the Notice Parties were squatters who had no permission to be in occupation. The First Notice Party similarly referred to a text message from the Appellant reminding them that rent was due.

8 . The First Notice Party described how she began working for the Appellant in the adjacent surgery from October, 2022. She described paying the rent in cash, initially by leaving it with the practice manager, who put it in a safe and subsequently by giving it directly to the Appellant when she started working in the surgery herself. She confirmed that she worked in the surgery from October, 2022, until August, 2023. The First Notice Party referred to correspondence from the practice manager, who left the Appellant's employment shortly after the First Notice Party started working for him, confirming that rent was delivered to the surgery and placed in the safe.

9 . After the First Notice Party gave notice to the Appellant that she was leaving his employment in August, 2023, her evidence was that the relationship deteriorated. She described the circumstances of her decision to leave work and the fact that this was the subject of complaint under another process. After that, a man arrived at the Dwelling in September, 2023, advising that he was moving in. There was a physical altercation involving the Second Notice Party and the Appellant consequent upon these events. Although no Notice of Termination was served on the Notice Parties, their evidence was that they were looking for another place to live but this was not an easy task.

10 . On the 31 ^st of October, 2023, before they had found alternative accommodation, the Notice Parties found themselves locked out of the Dwelling and an unknown man had moved in. They were denied access to the property and the Gardaí were called but indicated that it was a matter for civil remedy and the Notice Parties were advised to contact the RTB. Some belongings (passports) were delivered to the Garda station after the Notice Parties were locked out. They attended at the Dwelling by arrangement seemingly negotiated by the Gardaí to collect other belongings three days later. Their evidence was that by then their belongings had been removed from the Dwelling and some were soiled and damaged. Other items of furniture were never returned. The Notice Parties did not produce receipts in respect of any of these items.

11 . Under cross-examination, the First Notice Party told counsel for the Appellant that he said he bought the house for his wife. It was put to her that she had helped herself to the keys and moved into the property after she started working with the Appellant but the First Notice Party denied this referring to the video dating to July, 2022, taken when she and her partner took up occupation having received the keys and documentation from Harvey Norman in relation to the delivery of the fridge and cooker, charged to the Appellant but notified to them as well. She also referred to the text reminder from the Appellant that rent was due. All of these pre-dated her employment in the surgery by several months.

12 . In his evidence, the Second Notice Party also referred to text messages from the Appellant referring to delivery of keys to the Dwelling and delivery of white goods as well as the text message from the Appellant reminding them that rent was due. The Second Notice Party claimed that valuable possessions of his were stolen or...