Settle a charity wager about Covid 19 Legislation

Spook_ie

Given

https://twitter.com/bridsmithTD/status/1254871888989433856

and the wording of S5 Para 7 a, b, c, and d
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/2/section/5/enacted/en/html

(7) (a) Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this section, all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited during the operation of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, this section applies to all Local Authority and Approved Housing body dwellings.

(c) For the avoidance of doubt, all Travellers who are currently resident in any location should not during this crisis be evicted from that location except where movement is required to ameliorate hardship and provide protection and subject to consultation with the Travellers involved.

Does this indeed mean all evictions including lodgers, licensees people in digs etc. as PeopleB4Profit intended or not, and if it went before a judge which way would they likely interpret it

Peregrinus

I think the drafting of subs (7) is poor and, as a result, the answer to the question you ask is uncertain. But my best guess is that the answer is "no".

S.5 starts out by providing in subs. (1) that a landlord shall not serve a notice of termination in relation to the tenancy of a dwelling during the emergency period.

By s.3(2)(a), the reference to a "landlord" inludes a reference to a licensor within the meaning of Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 s.37.. And if we look at that section we find that "licensor" means the owner of student accommodation who gives a licence to a student to reside in a residential unit in the accommodation. "Student" and "student accommodation" are in turn defined in the same section. "Student accommodation" means "a building, or part of a building, used for the sole purpose . . . of providing residential accommodation to students during academic term times under a licence". So your ordinary rent-a-room in a private house is not "student accommodation" merely because the person who rents it happens to be a student.

So s. 5(1), on its own, would prevent the eviction of a student from student accommodation, but it wouldn't prevent other licensees from being excluded from premises licensed to them.

Right. So now we add on s. 5(7). It provides that " all proposed evictions in all tenancies in the State, including those not covered by the Act of 2004, are prohibited . . .". So now we have a puzzle. S. 5(7) applies to tenancies not coved by the 2004 Act, and "tenancy" includes a licence that is covered by the 2004 Act, i.e. a licence of student accommodation. But there's no statement anywhere that "tenancy" in s.5(7) includes licences that are not covered by the 2004 Act; it just includes tenancies that are not covered by the 2004 Act.

So I'd say no, s.5(7) applies to tenancies outside the scope of the 2004 Act, but not to licences outside the scope of the 2004 Act.

But another question occurs to me. Does s. 5(7) apply to prevent the termination of a tenancy that is not a tenancy of a dwelling/residential premises? If I am the lessee of commercial premises or agricultural land or whatever, am I protected by s. 5(7) from eviction during the emergency period?

Victor

Note that the RTB have issue guidance COVID-19 Emergency Legislation for the Rental Sector, however this might not be conclusive.

Peregrinus

[Never mind. Posted this in the wrong thread.]

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

But another question occurs to me. Does s. 5(7) apply to prevent the termination of a tenancy that is not a tenancy of a dwelling/residential premises? If I am the lessee of commercial premises or agricultural land or whatever, am I protected by s. 5(7) from eviction during the emergency period?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/dublin-furniture-business-gets-interim-injunction-over-alleged-eviction-1.4236334

That point is being run in a case before the courts at present. It was at lease sufficiently arguable for an interim injunction to be granted.

The Act is now inconsistent with itself since Section 3 defines the scope of the act and another section purports to deal with subject matter not subject to the act as defined in Section 3.

The high Court in 2010 refuses to infer some tenancies were not in the act partly on grounds that such a section could not be amorphous will ill defined categories of dwellings included. PRTB v Judge Linnane & anor [2010] IEHC 476

I think the use of the phrase that " it is understood that the intent of this provision" is the give away. It is long established that the only way the intent of legislation can be established is from the words actually used. Only if the words are ambiguous can resort be had to extrinsic sources in an attempt to clarify the meaning.

It is clear that there was some debate during the passing of the bill about people living with their landlord but te wording finally adopted does not deal with it at all. Section 3 was not amended or referred to and it clearly only applies to evictions and tenancies. A licencee is not a tenant and can't be evicted. Furthermore the subsection goes o to say "for the avoidance of doubt" and lists a few categories of tenants" As was held in the 2010 case, to expressly include some categories of occupant, is to exclude others.

I do not think any court would interpret the legislation to include situations where the landlords resides in the dwelling.