Mary Carolan
A company director has failed to overturn a direction to pay some €40,000 rent arrears on his south Dublin home to his landlord, a bank-appointed receiver.
The Private Residential Tenancies Board was entitled to find software developer Michael Doyle is contractually obliged to pay rent to receiver Tom Kavanagh on a property at Rockbrook Hall, Bray Road, Foxrock, Dublin, where Mr Doyle and his family have lived since late 2008, the High Court ruled.
Ms Justice Marie Baker noted Mr Doyle entered into a residential tenancy agreement with Mark McInerney concerning the Foxrock property in December 2008. The initial monthly rent of €5,000 was reduced by agreement in December 2010 to €3,000 per month and Mr Kavanagh has agreed he must accept the reduced rent figure, she added.
Mr Kavanagh informed Mr Doyle in April 2013 he had been appointed receiver over some assets of Cheval Construction Ltd, of which Mr McInerney was a director and secretary, and asked that rent from then on be paid to him.
On October 11th 2013, Mr Kavanagh served a notice of termination on grounds rent had not been paid and seeking that Mr Doyle give up possession of the property. Apart from a payment of €2,000 in May 2014, no rent was paid to Mr Kavanagh, the judge noted.
Resolution
Mr Doyle had on October 22nd 2013 sought dispute resolution before the tenancies board, arguing the termination notice was invalid. A board adjudicator, in a determination of December 11th 2013, found the notice was valid and directed Mr Doyle pay rent arrears of €40,098 within 28 days.
In High Court proceedings against the tenancies board, Mr Doyle argued it had no jurisdiction to make a determination concerning rent when, he claimed, there was no dispute or complaint before the board about any matter other than the termination notice.
In her judgment, Ms Justice Baker upheld the tenancies board findings.
The Residential Tenancies Acts 2004-2009, (the Act), provides either a tenant or landlord may refer a dispute for resolution, she said.
Disagreeing with Mr Doyle’s argument rent was not an issue before the tenancies board, the judge said he was effectively saying the person who first refers the issue to the board, fully delineates the matters that may be resolved in that process.
The tenancies board and its adjudicator were entitled to inquire into each relevant aspect of the dispute, including rent arrears and the amount of those, which latter issue came to be “a matter of little contention” between the parties, she said.
Documents
Documents sent by the board to both sides in advance of the hearing made evident the question of rent arrears was “a live issue” in the file, that could have come as “no surprise” to Mr Doyle and the landlord also put before the adjudicator his claim for rent arrears.
Mr Doyle’s primary argument, that the tenancies board and its adjudicator were constrained in their approach because of how he had framed the dispute was incorrect “as a matter of law and as a matter of good sense”.
The judge rejected as “without merit” further arguments by Mr Doyle there was “no agreement at all” between him and the receiver which might have constituted a tenancy agreement in respect of which rent arrears might have arisen.
As early as November 2013, Mr Doyle engaged with the receiver who agreed to accept the lower rent and the identity of the landlord ceased to be an issue then, she said.
