Knowledge Base
Paul Canty -v- Private Residential Tenancies Board, [2007] IEHC 243 (2007)
In the 2007 high court ruling ‘[2007] IEHC 243, 2006 519 SP’ Judge Mary Laffoy said: “In my view, the provisions of the Act of 2004 for the valid termination of a Part 4 tenancy for non-payment of rent are very technical and confusing. It is difficult to understand why, in relation to non-payment of rent, the notification required by para. (a) of ground 1 in s. 34 could not have been made co-terminous with the notification under s. 67(3).”
Paul Canty -v- Private Residential Tenancies Board [2008] IESC 24 (30 April 2008)
The 2007 High Court ruling was appealed by the tenant Paul Canty. In 2008 the High Court allowed the appeal.
Paul Canty -v- PRTB & Connolly v Canty [2011] IESC 28 (19 July 2011)
In the Supreme Court ‘[2008] IESC 24, 271/07’ Judge Nicholas Kearns stated: “…however, s. 123(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004, which, if I may say so, is unsatisfactorily drafted in a number of respects, is much less clear.” In 2011 the appeal was dismissed in the Supreme Court for reasons explained in this file.
