Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal brought by the appellant, who successfully defended a motion brought by the fourth respondent seeking to dismiss the appellant’s claim on the grounds it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is bound to fail but who was of the view that certain findings made by the trial judge were prejudicial to the ultimate trial, and upholds decision of the High Court refusing to grant the fourth respondent's motion, on the grounds that: (a) the trial judge was correct that a determination was made by the Circuit Court that the bank was not the landlord of the appellant, and that finding, not having been appealed or reviewed, is final and binds the appellant; (b) the plea that the fourth respondent had become landlord to the appellant is bound to fail as there was no contractual nexus between the parties; and (c) as the lending bank did not become the owner of the property or extinguish the rights of the mortgagor on account of taking possession, the argument that the interest of the landlord had become vested in the fourth respondent could not succeed.
Baker J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision of the High Court refusing to grant the fourth respondent's motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is bound to fail - appeal was brought by plaintiff who successfully defended the motion but was of the view that certain observations made by the trial judge and certain aspects of his reasoning contained findings likely to prejudice the ultimate trial - landlord and tenant law - the appellant was a tenant at a residential premises - the appellant claimed that, following an order for possession being granted by the Circuit Court, the lending Bank and the fourth respondent, who was the successor in title, were her landlord - the appellant made an application to the Private Residential Tenancies Board ("RTB") when the Bank sought vacant possession claiming that it was an invalid notice of termination - the RTB delivered a determination that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Bank or the Fund were not the appellant's landlord - this decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court on appeal - this decision was not appealed or challenged by judicial review - the appellant instituted proceedings in which she seeks various orders including a declaration that the fourth respondent is her landlord - the fourth respondent issued the within motion - Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - the High Court concluded that the pleaded case of the appellant that the fourth respondent is her landlord was bound to fail and accepted that this claim was res judicata due to the appeal in the Circuit Court - the Court also concluded that this did not mean that there was no case to answer as he considered that there were two issues which ought to be allowed to be determined at trial and consequently refused the motion - the observations of the trial judge were appealable as they were the core of his decision and have legal consequence - whether the issue of whether the fourth respondent was landlord had been determined by the Circuit Court on the appeal from the RTB - section 84(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 - the matter was res judicata - whether the plea that fund was landlord of the appellant is bound to fail - the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act, Ireland 1860 (“Deasy’s Act”) - no contractual nexus between the parties - appeal dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now