Appeal of refusal to adjourn special summons proceedings is without any merit whatsoever

Appeal of a decision by the High Court to refuse an application by the Second Defendant to adjourn special summons proceedings - Second Defendant said that the purpose of the adjournment was to allow the Residential Tenancy Board to decide an issue referred to it by the Second Defendant - she wants the RTB to fix the terms of a tenancy which she claims to have in a property owned by her brother – Second Plaintiff wants to sell the property as it is owed €280,000.00 - the First Named Plaintiff is the Receiver - Court noted that the proposition put forward on appeal by the Second Defendant was quite extraordinary – she says that that both Court of Appeal and the RTB should act on the assumption that there was or is a valid tenancy - there is an assumption that the RTB is to assume jurisdiction over the objections of the Plaintiffs – Second Defendant asks the court to stay proceedings brought by Plaintiffs – one is owed a considerable amount of money – Court commented that there were a series of disjointed arguments - failed to persuade the Court that the High Court judge erred at all - Court found that the RTB could not have decided the issue of whether or not the Second Defendant has or had a tenancy in the property - Court noted an utter lack of logic in the approach taken by Second Defendant and her lawyers on the issue as to what the High Court judge was and was not to decide - lack of analytical congruence in the appeal - confusion about s. 84 of the 2004 Act and about the appeal on costs issues – Second Defendant argued that proceedings could and should have been commenced in the Circuit Court and High Court judge erred in awarding the costs of the motion against the Second Defendant on the High Court scale – Court of Appeal said the problem with the appeal on costs is that there was no record of the reasoning of the High Court judge as to why costs should be awarded against Second Defendant at the High Court level – no application for access to the DAR - no effort to agree a note between either counsel or solicitors - no note was prepared by the Appellant and submitted to the High Court Judge for his approval – Court found that it could not decide that the approach of the learned High Court Judge was either right or wrong - responsibility for having the relevant materials lies with the appellant - Court dismissed the appeal against the costs order – Court found that it was an appeal without any merit whatsoever – Court found that once the essential issues of the respective jurisdictions of the High Court and the RTB were isolated and decided, the motion to adjourn made no sense - open to the High Court to decide whether or not the Appellant enjoyed the tenancy which she claims – Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds – Court’s provisional view was that costs should be awarded against the Appellant.