ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS OF THE PRTB

We were interested to read this week of an application to the Circuit Court by the Private Residential Tenancies Board to enforce one of its orders. 

The application was brought on behalf of a landlord in relation to arrears of rent. The PRTB were seeking enforcement of their order for rent arrears and possession of the property. The Court heard that the tenant had not paid rent since 2011 and remained in possession of the property, building up very substantial arrears of almost €42,000. Judge Linnane directed that the tenant vacate the property within seven days of being served with the court order and granted judgment against the tenant for €41,809 and costs.

This situation is any landlord’s worst nightmare. It well illustrates the lengthy delays that landlords can face in securing final resolution of a dispute with their tenant. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the landlord in that case will be able to recover all the monies he is owed despite obtaining a judgment and an order for his costs. 

We recently represented a client before the Tenancy Tribunal of the PRTB. The other side put a proposal to us to settle the case prior to the hearing and we advised our client as to whether or not we would recommend the proposal to him. One factor in our advice to our client during settlement negotiations was that in circumstances where the other side did not comply with any order made by the Tribunal, enforcement of the order would add further costs and delay. The client ultimately decided that he was happy to accept the proposal and the case settled with our client receiving a favourable sum by way of damages. 

It is unfortunate that a potential difficulty with enforcement must be taken into account in such cases. However, it has to be an important consideration where such enforcement could take a considerable time and be ultimately unrewarded.

Rebecca Keatinge

Brophy Solicitors

CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE

This week we learnt of two important changes in relation to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. 

The first change relates to the coming into effect of provisions of the Courts & Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 that will take effect on the 3rd of February 2014. 

This significant change will increase the monetary jurisdictions of the Civil Courts. The jurisdiction of the District Court in civil proceedings will be increased to €15,000, up from €6,384. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court will increase from €28,092 to €75,000 except in personal injury cases where a new monetary jurisdiction of €60,000 will apply. 

These changes are significant as they are likely to reduce the cost of litigation. For example, a case that would previously have been initiated in the High Court may fall within the monetary jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, reducing the cost of stamp duty and legal fees. It remains to be seen however if the courts will be adequately resourced to deal with the possible increase in the volume of cases being initiated in the Circuit or District Court. 

The second development comes through an amendment to the Civil Liability Act, 1961. The maximum amount that a dependant of a deceased person could claim in a case of wrongful death stood at €25,394.76. This limit has been increased to €35,000 applicable from the 11th of January 2014. This sum of damages is called the solatium and is claimable in fatal injury cases. It is important to bear in mind however that the solatium available is a collective amount that must be shared by all affected dependents. It is the role of a judge to assess what level of compensation for mental distress is appropriate but in circumstances where the total for all dependents exceeds the statutory limit then it must be reduced to the new statutory limit of €35,000.

Rebecca Keatinge

Brophy Solicitors