Beatty v Rent Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2001
• Docket Number: 2001 No. 110 JR
• Year: 2001
• Court: High Court

BETWEEN

MARK BEATTY AND WALTER BEATTY

APPLICANTS

AND

THE RENT TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT

AND

FRANCIS MCNALLY

NOTICE PARTY

2001 No. 110 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Abstract:

Landlord and tenant - Judicial review - Valuation - Rent tribunal - Inspection of premises - Whether determination of respondent flawed - Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982 - Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) (Amendment) Act, 1983.

The applicants, as landlords of a premises, sought a review of the terms of a tenancy under the relevant Private Rented Dwellings legislation. A determination was made by the respondent which the applicants sought to have quashed on various grounds. The applicants complained that they had not been informed of the time of the inspection and furthermore had not been afforded sufficient time to respond to the valuation report submitted by the tenant. Mr Justice Finnegan was satisfied that the requirements of natural justice had not been met. In addition the respondent had failed to furnish adequate reasons for its determination and the determination would be quashed.

1 JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Finnegan delivered the 25th day of July, 2001.

2 The Applicants made application to the Respondent for a review of the terms of the tenancy in premises 10 Newgrove Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin pursuant to the provisions of the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Act, 1982 and the Housing(Private Rented Dwellings) ( Amendment) Act, 1983 the Applicants being the landlord and the Notice Party the tenant in respect of the tenancy. The Applicants seek an Order of Certiorari quashing the determination of the Respondent on the said application on a number of grounds which may be summarised as follows:

3 1. The Respondent carried out an inspection of the premises in the presence of the Notice Party but in the absence of the Applicants.

4 2. The Respondent afforded the Applicants insufficient time to respond to the Notice Party’s valuation report.

5 3. The Respondent failed to give any or any adequate reasons for its determination and/or to make directions as to works to be carried out in the premises as a term of the tenancy.

6 I propose to deal with each of these grounds in turn.

7 1. The Respondent carried out an inspection of the premises in the presence of the Notice Party but in the absence of the Applicants

8 It is the practice of the Respondent to inspect the premises the subject matter of an application to it. By letters dated the 21st of August 2000 and 13th November 2000 the Respondent notified the Applicants of its intention to inspect the premises the subject matter of the application giving rise to these proceedings. The letter of 13th November 2000 is in the following terms:

9 “Arrangements have now been made for the inspection of the above dwelling and determination of the case by the Tribunal. Inspection will take place on the morning of Wednesday 29th November 2000.

10 I should point out that the landlord (or his representative) is entitled to attend at the inspection and the tenant has so been informed

11 The case will be determined on the day of the inspection and you will be notified of the decision of the Tribunal in due course”.

12 The Applicants’ Solicitor in response to this letter wrote to the Respondent on the 20th November 2000 seeking a specific time for the inspection and further in default of reply to his letter made a phone call to the Respondent to the like effect on the 21st November 2000. The Respondent could have been in no doubt but that the Applicants intended to be represented at the inspection. The Applicants were not informed of the time scheduled for the inspection. The reason for this, it appears, is that the Respondent carries out a number of inspections on the same day and the most precise information available

13 had already been given - the inspection would be carried out in the morning on the day specified. The Applicants’ Solicitor contacted the Respondent on the 29th November 2000, the day specified for the inspection, by telephone and was given to understand that the inspection would be carried out at midday and he attended at the premises at that time. However, the inspection was in fact carried out at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of the Notice Party’s representative but without any attendance by or on behalf of the Applicants. The determination of the Respondent was made the same day.

14 The rules of natural justice apply to tribunals of whatever kind and whether judicial or other. The rule audi alteram partem necessarily applies in every case notwithstanding that the content of the other requirements of natural justice may vary depending on the circumstances which attend any particular tribunal. In Harvey -v- Shelton 1844 7 BEAV. 455 at 462 Langdale MR said:

15 “It is so ordinary a principle in the administration of justice that no party to a cause can be allowed to use any means whatsoever to influence the mind of the judge, which means are not known to and incapable of being met and resisted by the other party, that it is impossible for a moment not to see that this was an extremely indirect mode of proceeding to say the very least of it. It is contrary to every principle to allow such a thing and I wholly deny the difference which is alleged to exist...