Snochowski v Private Residential Tenancies Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Eagar
• Judgment Date: 07 April 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 236
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 180 MCA]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 07 April 2017

[2017] IEHC 236

THE HIGH COURT

Eagar J.

[2016 No. 180 MCA]

BETWEEN

JACEK SNOCHOWSKI

APPELLANT

AND

AN BORD UM THIONÓNTACHTAÍ PRÍOBHÁIDEACHA CÓNAITHE (THE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES BOARD)

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND

MCGINLEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

SECOND RESPONDENT

Landlord & Tenant – S. 124 of the Residential Tenancy Acts 2004-2015 – Inherent jurisdiction – Award of costs.

Facts: Following the order of the Court to the effect that the second respondent was entitled to appeal the adjudicated report, the appellant now sought an order for directing the second respondent to comply with the determination order of the Board along with the costs of the proceedings.

Mr. Justice Eagar refused to grant the desired relief to the appellant. The Court held that there would be no order as to the costs. The Court held that the jurisdiction to deal with the present matter rested with the District Court. The Court observed that the award of costs would be governed by the Schedule of costs in the District Court rules, which, in essence, lay within the jurisdiction of the District Court.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Eagar delivered on the 7th day of April, 2017

1 In this case the Court decided that the second named respondent was entitled to appeal the adjudicated report because there was no mention in s. 100 of the Residential Tenancy Acts 2004 to 2015 of a referral – it was purely an appeal. The court accepted the submission of the first named respondent that the Board must act with due regard to fair procedures and that as well as the appellant, the second named respondent was entitled to fair procedures and the court refused the leave sought in the notice of motion.

2 Counsel on behalf of the first named respondent applied for her costs in the matter on the basis that the costs followed the event.

3 Counsel on behalf of the appellant sought the court to make an order requiring the second named respondent to comply with the determination order including that it pay €2,496.95 to the appellant.

4 Section 124(1), (2) and (3) of the Acts states that:

'(1) If the Board or a party mentioned in a determination order is satisfied that another party has failed to comply with one or more terms of that order, the Board or the first-mentioned party may make an application under this section to the District Court for an order under subsection (2).

(2) On such an application and subject to section 125, the District Court shall make an order directing the party concerned (the 'respondent') to comply with the term or terms concerned if it is satisfied that the respondent has failed to comply with that term or those terms, unless

(a) it considers there are substantial reasons (related to one or more of the matters mentioned in subsection (3)) for not making an order under this subsection, or

(b) the respondent shows to the satisfaction of the court that one of the matters specified in subsection (3) applies in relation to the determination order.

(3) The matters mentioned in subsection (2) are—

(a) a requirement of procedural fairness was not complied with in the relevant proceedings under this part,

(b) a material consideration was not taken account of in those proceedings or account was taken in those proceedings of a consideration that was not material,

(c) a manifestly erroneous decision in relation to a legal issue was made in those proceedings,

(d) the determination made by the adjudicator or...