Background
Gabriela Hennigan and her husband let a Dublin property to Laurent Stacchetti under a fixed-term tenancy agreement beginning in September 2023. Hennigan maintained that the tenancy was replaced by a licence agreement, but Stacchetti disputed that account. In April 2024, after he declined to pay a contested invoice, Stacchetti returned to find the locks changed even though he had received no notice of termination and his rent was paid through 22 April.
An RTB adjudicator found that the tenancy had been unlawfully terminated and awarded Stacchetti €15,000. On the landlords’ appeal, a three-member Tenancy Tribunal conducted a de novo hearing and determined that the arrangement was a tenancy governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. It awarded €3,500 for interference with peaceful and exclusive occupation, €3,500 for unlawful termination, and ordered repayment of the €850 deposit.
Hennigan pursued both a statutory High Court appeal on a point of law and an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. Her judicial-review grounds included lack of jurisdiction, procedural unfairness, bias, inadequate reasons, failure to consider evidence and family circumstances, disability discrimination, and alleged breaches of constitutional and Convention rights.
The Court’s Holding
Ms Justice Sara Phelan refused leave on every proposed ground. The applicant had not established arguable grounds that the RTB acted outside its jurisdiction, denied her fair procedures, failed to give adequate reasons, disregarded legally relevant matters, or displayed bias. The Tribunal hearing was de novo, the applicant knew of and participated in it, and the detailed Tribunal report identified the evidential and legal basis for its conclusions.
The Court held that evidence concerning the condition of the property, the applicant’s health, her daughter’s disability, and the family’s personal and financial circumstances was not relevant to the narrow dispute the Tribunal had to decide: whether the arrangement was a tenancy and whether the landlords had interfered with and unlawfully terminated it. Article 42A did not apply because the RTB proceedings were not proceedings concerning a child’s safety, welfare, adoption, guardianship, custody, or access. The Equal Status Act 2000 likewise did not govern the RTB’s exercise of its quasi-judicial decision-making function in these circumstances.
Several complaints concerning jurisdiction, legal error, or reasons could in any event be addressed through Hennigan’s existing statutory appeal on a point of law. That appeal already suspended the RTB determination order, so a separate stay of enforcement was unnecessary. The Court left costs to be addressed after hearing the parties.
Key Takeaways
- A judicial-review applicant must present substantiated, arguable grounds; bare allegations of bias, bad faith, or procedural impropriety are insufficient.
- Personal hardship and family circumstances are not material considerations unless they bear on the statutory questions the decision-maker was required to determine.
- Judicial review will not ordinarily duplicate an available statutory appeal capable of addressing alleged errors of law or inadequate reasons.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the boundary between judicial review and the statutory appeal mechanism governing RTB determinations. Judicial review examines the legality and fairness of the decision-making process; it is not a vehicle for rehearing factual disputes or introducing matters outside the Tribunal’s statutory remit.
It also cautions litigants against making unsupported bias allegations and confirms that disability, constitutional, and Convention arguments must be connected to the nature and subject matter of the proceedings rather than asserted solely because a determination has serious personal consequences.