Cahill v Residential Tenancies Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice David Barniville
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 410
• Docket Number: 2024 646 MCA

Between

Jason Cahill

Appellant

and

Residential Tenancies Board

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 410

2024 646 MCA

THE HIGH COURT

Tenancy – Preliminary objection – Time period – Respondent raising an issue by way of a preliminary objection – Whether the appellant’s appeal was brought within the required time period

Facts: The respondent, the Residential Tenancies Board (the Board), raised an issue by way of a preliminary objection in its statement of opposition in the proceedings. The issue was whether the appeal brought by the appellant, Mr Cahill, under s. 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 from a determination order made by the Board and dated 28 February 2024 (the Determination Order) was brought within the required time period contained in s. 123(8) of the 2004 Act, being “the period of 21 days beginning on the date that the determination order concerned [was] issued to the parties”. The Originating Notice of Motion constituting Mr Cahill’s appeal was issued and filed in the Central Office of the High Court on 20 December 2024. The Board claimed, by way of preliminary objection, that the appeal was brought well outside the 21-day time period in s. 123(8) and that it should be dismissed on that basis. The Board’s position was that a long line of case law establishes that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time period and that, since Mr Cahill’s appeal was brought outside that time period, his appeal should be dismissed. In the alterative, and without prejudice to that principal contention, the Board maintained that if the court does have the power to extend the 21 day time period, the Court should decline to do so on the basis that the criteria set out in cases such as Seniors Money Mortgages Ireland DAC v Gately and McGovern [2020] IESC 3 were not satisfied in this case. Mr Cahill accepted that he received a copy of the Determination Order and a copy of the Report of the Tenancy Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 7 March 2024 and that his appeal was not brought until 20 December 2024, although he stated in his submissions to the Court that he made several attempts to bring his appeal in the period between his receipt of the Determination Order and other material from the Board and the date on which the motion was issued.

Held by Barniville P that, on the basis of the well-established case law and, most notably, the recent dicta of Murray J in his judgment in Kirwan v O’Leary and Ors [2023] IESC 27, the court did not have any jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time period. Barniville P held that since Mr Cahill’s appeal was brought several months outside that period, his appeal was clearly out of time and must, for that reason, be dismissed. Even if, contrary to what Barniville P accepted was the correct position, the court did have a jurisdiction to extend the time period, he held that he would not have extended the period in this case in circumstances where none of the guiding criteria set out in Seniors Money were satisfied and where the balance of justice did not, in all the circumstances of the case, require that an extension of time to appeal be granted to Mr Cahill.

Barniville P held that since Mr Cahill’s appeal was not brought within the requisite 21-day time period in s. 123 of the 2004 Act, the court must accede to the Board’s preliminary objection and dismiss Mr Cahill’s appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

[APPROVED]

[NO REDACTION NEEDED]

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered on the 18 ^th day of July 2025

Index

1. Introduction	3
2. Factual Background	4
3. Mr Cahill's Appeal	7
4. The Relevant Provisions of the 2004 Act	10
5. The Relevant Authorities	11
6. Decision on Application	15
7. Conclusions and Preliminary View on Costs	17

1. Introduction

1 . This is my judgment on an issue raised by way of a preliminary objection by the Respondent, the Residential Tenancies Board (the “Board”), in its statement of opposition in these proceedings. The issue is whether the appeal brought by the Appellant, Mr. Cahill, under section 123(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 (as amended) (the “2004 Act”) from a determination order made by the Board and dated 28 February 2024 (the “Determination Order”) was brought within the required time period contained in section 123(8) of the 2004 Act, being “ the period of 21 days beginning on the date that the determination order concerned [was] issued to the parties”.

2 . The Originating Notice of Motion constituting Mr. Cahill's appeal was issued and filed in the Central Office of the High Court on 20 December 2024. The Board claims, by way of preliminary objection, that the appeal was brought well outside the 21-day time period in section 123(8) of the 2004 Act and that it should be dismissed on that basis. The Board's position is that a long line of case law establishes that the court has no jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time period and that, since Mr. Cahill's appeal was brought outside that time period, his appeal should be dismissed. In the alterative, and without prejudice to that principal contention, the Board maintains that if the court does have the power to extend the 21 day time period, the Court should decline to do so on the basis that the criteria set out in cases such as Seniors Money Mortgages Ireland DAC v Gately and McGovern [2020] IESC 3, [2020] 2 IR 441, are not satisfied in this case.

3 . Mr. Cahill accepts that he received a copy of the Determination Order and a copy of the Report of the Tenancy Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on 7 March 2024 and that his appeal was not brought until 20 December 2024, although he stated in his submissions to the Court that he made several attempts to bring his appeal in the period between his receipt of the Determination Order and other material from the Board and the date on which the motion was issued.

4 . For the reasons set out in this judgment, I have concluded that on the basis of the well-established case law and, most notably, the recent dicta of Murray J. in his judgment in the Supreme Court Kirwan v O'Leary and Ors [2023] IESC 27, the court does not have any jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time period. Since Mr. Cahill's appeal was brought several months outside that period, his appeal is clearly out of time and must, for that reason, be dismissed. Even if, contrary to what I accept is the correct position, the court does have a jurisdiction to extend the time period, I would not have extended the period in this case in circumstances where none of the guiding criteria set out in Seniors Money are satisfied and where the balance of justice does not, in all the circumstances of the case, require that an extension of time to appeal be granted to Mr. Cahill.

2. Factual Background

5 . In March 2023, a complaint was referred to the Board for resolution in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling in Limerick. The complaint was made by the landlords and it concerned a tenancy in which Mr. Cahill was the tenant. The complaint was initially dealt with by way of adjudication. The adjudication took place in May 2023. The adjudicator found that a notice of termination served by the landlords in January 2023 was valid and required Mr. Cahill to vacate and give up possession of the dwelling. The adjudicator also directed Mr. Cahill to pay the sum of €480 to the landlords within 21 days in respect of rent arrears. Mr. Cahill was also directed to continue to pay any further outstanding rent at a specified rate.

6 . Mr. Cahill appealed against the outcome of the adjudication in July 2023. A Tribunal was constituted to hear the appeal pursuant to sections 102 and 103 of the 2004 Act. The hearing of the appeal was initially scheduled for 8 September 2023. It was adjourned on a number of occasions on the application of Mr. Cahill, most recently on 4 December 2023, before ultimately proceeding by way of an oral hearing before the Tribunal on 12 January 2024. Mr. Cahill did not attend the hearing. He was in contact prior to the hearing stating that he was unwell and would not be attending. Mr. Cahill did make written submissions and provided documentation to the Tribunal to be considered in his appeal. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing and to deal with Mr. Cahill's arguments on the basis of the written documentation which he had submitted.

7 . The Tribunal made its determination in relation to Mr. Cahill's appeal on 22 December 2024 and prepared a report setting out its determination (the “Report”) which it notified to the Board that day. A Determination Order dated 28 February 2024 was then made by the Board pursuant to section 121 of the 2004 Act.

8 . In summary, in the Determination Order, it was determined that:-

• (1) Mr. Cahill had failed in his obligations under section 16(a)(i) of the 2004 Act to pay the rent as it fell due and directed him to pay the sum of €1,341.00 to the landlords within 28 days of the date of issue of the Determination Order;

• (2) Mr. Cahill was also directed to pay the sum of €1,000 to the landlords within 28 days of the date of issue of the Determination Order in respect of damages for breach of tenant obligations pursuant to section 16(h) of the 2004 Act for alleged anti-social behaviour;

• (3) A notice of termination served on 13 January 2023 in respect of the tenancy was valid;

• (4) Mr. Cahill had been overholding in the dwelling since 13 February 2023 and he was directed to vacate and give up possession of the dwelling within 14 days of the date of issue of the Determination Order;

• (5) Mr. Cahill was directed to continue to pay any further rent outstanding to the landlords from 12 January 2024 at a specified rate.

• (6) The landlords were directed to refund the security deposit of €220 to Mr. Cahill on gaining vacant possession of the dwelling, less any amounts properly withheld in...