Is it legal to withdraw a termination notice for a tenant or a landlord in Ireland?

Victor wrote: »

I think withdrawal would have to be by agreement. A termination notice ends the contract, unless there is an allowed for cooling off period. That a notice period is involved is minor and it merely specifies a later date for vacating the property.

Let us say a tenant issued notice. the tenant then cancels that notice and demands the landlord respect the lease / Part 4 (until the landlord can issue their notice and serve the time), after the landlord has signed a lease for a new tenant or a contract for building work. That would put the landlord in an invidious position. It would work the other way around also.

Thank you very much, I made some deeper searches. Most pre-union acts have been abolished and the 1737 Distress for Rent Act is not applicable to Ireland anymore: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/pre-acts.html

Mesne profits seem to be applicable however: https://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/rdg/kk0011012.htm
"Where the trespasser is an overholding tenant, such damages are called mesne profits; as Lloyd LJ put it in Ministry of Defence v Ashman mesne profits are "simply damages for trespass recoverable against a tenant who holds over after the lawful termination of his tenancy". However all these discussions are pre-2004.

I looked at the RTA and the only section that discusses termination notices withdrawals is Section 28: "(4) Despite the fact that such a notice of termination has been so served, that condition shall be regarded as satisfied if the notice is subsequently withdrawn." where a landlord can withdraw a termination notice served in the first 6 months and part 4 applies in this way.

Here the RTB says that a landlord might withdraw a notice of termination:
https://www.rtb.ie/media-research/publications/occupying-a-tenancy-beyond-the-expiry-of-the-notice-period
"Where a landlord, either verbally or in writing, withdraws a Notice of Termination, the tenancy will then continue."
It refers however to a situation of overholding where it is clear that a tenants wants to stay (so implicit acceptance of the withdrawal from the other party). I am baffled, because as usual I cannot find anything for Ireland while in other jurisdictions the law is much clearer and case law plentiful.

GM228 wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

Thank you very much, I made some deeper searches. Most pre-union acts have been abolished and the 1737 Distress for Rent Act is not applicable to Ireland anymore: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/pre-acts.html

The Statute Law Revision Act 2007 repealed the 1737 Act.

GGTrek wrote: »

Mesne profits seem to be applicable however: https://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/rdg/kk0011012.htm
"Where the trespasser is an overholding tenant, such damages are called mesne profits; as Lloyd LJ put it in Ministry of Defence v Ashman mesne profits are "simply damages for trespass recoverable against a tenant who holds over after the lawful termination of his tenancy". However all these discussions are pre-2004.

They seem to be all UK decisions cited.

The Hickey vs Roches Stores (High Court, unreported, 14 July 1976) case would be the authorative case on the issue of mesne profits here I believe:-

where a wrongdoer has calculated and intended by his wrongdoing to achieve a gain or profit which he could not otherwise achieve and has in that way acted mala fide then irrespective of whether the form of his wrongdoing constitutes a tort or a breach of contract the Court should in assessing damages look not only to the loss suffered by the injured party but also to the profit or gain unjustly or wrongly obtained by the wrongdoer

Damages for use and occupation seems to be a more modern phrase used instead of mesne profits.

In order for restitutionary damages to apply the defendant must have acted mala fide - in bad faith with intent to deceive as per the Hickey case.


Also note Superior Court Order: 2:-

1. Procedure by summary summons may be adopted in the following classes of claims:

(2) In actions where a landlord seeks to recover possession of land, with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits

(a) against a tenant whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit; or

(b) for non-payment of rent.

Thank you very much for the answers. But my main doubt is still open. Can a landlord or a tenant of a residential letting in Ireland withdraw a termination notice without the agreement of the other party? It is clear to me that for commercial lettings this is not possible without the other party agreeing (i.e. the other party can go to court and enforce the break notice that was provided). What is not clear to me is in the following cases:

Landlord provides valid termination notice, tenant finds alternative accommodation and has expenses (like moving expenses and new deposit). Landlord changes his mind and withdraws the termination notice and requires rent to be paid unless tenant provides his/her termination notice (which could be a few months more of rent). I find it hard to believe that this could be allowed, but I found nothing in statute or case law.

Opposite case (similar to the link I posted about UK law). Tenant provides termination notice, he does not manage to find alternative accommodation or his plans change (for example house purchase completion date slips), a few days before the termination date, he/she communicates to the landlord that he/she is withdrawing the notice and staying put. Landlord has already signed a contract with a building contractor for a renovation and now landlord is liable to pay a fine for breach of the building contract, even worse landlord has already found a new tenant and accepted deposit (I believe only a very irresponsible landlord would do this in Ireland, but the building contractor situation is very common, builders are not going to be available on the spot). Could the landlord take the tenant to the RTB to declare the tenant as overholding and then enforce the termination through the circuit court and make the tenant pay the fine he had to pay to the building company? Again I cannot find anything in statute and case law.