A DECISION by a West Cork District Court judge not to ‘rubber stamp’ an order made by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) meant that the issue was referred to the Circuit Court for consideration.
At a recent sitting of Skibbereen Circuit Court, Judge Helen Boyle reviewed the submissions that had been made to Judge James McNulty in the District Court.
Judge Boyle held that the landlord Colin O’Sullivan (46) of Carrigillihy, Union Hall, was to abide by the determination order made by the RTB.
As part of the RTB order, the landlord is to pay €18,500 in compensation to Gabriela Lake and her daughter McKenzie Lake on foot of their illegal eviction from the house at Carrigillihy.
Colin O’Sullivan, who was legally represented by barrister John Devlin, instructed by Mary Toher solicitor, had argued that he was hampered in his dealings with the RTB because he did not have legal representation during an initial hearing and an appeal process. In both the higher and the lower court, Colin O’Sullivan said he had effectively dialled into the proceedings, using his phone, in his van, at the side of the road, for both proceedings.
But the RTB, which was represented by barrister Brian Hallissey, instructed by Michelle Noonan solicitor, argued that the landlord was given a fair hearing and had every opportunity to air his grievances and issues relating to the tenancy agreement.
The RTB’s legal team said there was nothing to suggest in the evidence that there was procedural unfairness.
There was, they said, no bias and matters were given ‘a proper hearing – twice.’
The RTB initially made the determination order in March 2023. It held that the tenancy agreement was unlawfully terminated by the landlord and that the sum of €18,500 was to be paid.
That figure included €12,000 for damages for the unlawful terminations; €1,000 for the unjustifiably retained security deposit; €3,500 for the cost of kennelling dogs; and €2,000 the value of the tenants’ cars.
The RTB also directed the landlord to return all personal items and furniture listed in the case file.
O’Sullivan’s legal team argued that an RTB determination order could be challenged on the basis that their client – who was living in a mobile home at the time and was in very ill-health – had been receiving treatment for a very aggressive form of cancer.
They also argued that Ms Lake’s rental payments were erratic, and that she had missed payments. And that her absence from the property was a cause of concern for the landlord.
‘He didn’t observe formality in terminating the tenancy, but he found himself in a position where he was no longer in a position to keep the tenancy going,’ his solicitor, Mary Toher, stated.
The solicitor also said there was no written tenancy agreement to start with. And it was alleged that the tenants did ‘untold damage to the property.’ In evidence at the Circuit Court, Colin O’Sullivan said he didn’t get legal representation because he had been told by the RTB that he would get a fair hearing. But he alleged he had been ‘railroaded’ by the RTB.
‘They turned and twisted everything I said to their benefit,’ he added. ‘Anything I said was shut down.’ Colin O’Sullivan also alleged that the damage to his property was put down to ‘wear and tear’ and not the destruction caused by the tenant’s two mastiff dogs.
Michelle Noonan acknowledged that ‘this case has been difficult from the start’ but she said the landlord’s medical condition did not give him a defence. And she pointed out that the case had already been adjudicated twice.
Barrister Brian Hallissey said Colin O’Sullivan was clearly unhappy with the outcome of the RTB hearing, but he said he had access to a computer, legal advice, a fair process, and there was nothing to suggest he was cognitively impaired.
Judge Helen Boyle held that there was nothing to suggest that the landlord was incapable of representing himself. She also held there was no procedural unfairness because all of his documentation had been uploaded and he was given an opportunity to make all of his arguments.
‘It is not for me to go into the merits of the case but I am satisfied that these matters were ventilated fully,’ said Judge Boyle. ‘It is accepted that he has a history of poor health, but there is no evidence to say he was in any way impaired in representing himself.’
