High Court judgement published during the week: Argutinski v RTB [2026] Link
A High Court judgment from March 2026 has exposed a serious error in the RTB's own published guidance on notices of termination, with potentially thousands of cases affected over the past 5 years.
What happened?
A Dublin accommodation provider served a notice of termination on a tenant for non-payment of rent. The notice was posted on 21 January 2023. The tenant gave unchallenged evidence that he received it on 23 January. The Tenancy Tribunal sided with the landlord, ruling that the date of posting was the date of service.
The tenant (representing himself) appealed to the High Court and won. The judge found that a posted document is legally deemed served when it arrives in the ordinary course of post, not when it is posted. This is important as, under the RTA Act, the RTB need to be furnished with the notice of termination on the day it is served, otherwise the notice of termination is invalid. As such, in this case, the notice of termination is invalid as the NOT document was given to the RTB on the date it was posted, not served.
He also found that the notice had been signed by "Martin Property Consultants" (a name with no legal existence) when the law requires it to be signed by the landlord or their properly nominated agent. He described the notice as "hopelessly flawed" and cancelled the determination order entirely.
The RTB's own website says the opposite
The RTB's website currently tells landlords a valid notice must be uploaded at the same time it it posted (not what the RTA says, i.e. when legally served)
Below from their website (screenshot at bottom):
Source : https://www.rtb.ie/registration-and-compliance/ending-a-tenancy/notices-of-termination
That is exactly the position the High Court has ruled is wrong. Landlords who followed this guidance in good faith, may have had their notices invalidated as a result. If posting isn't service, landlords following RTB guidance were never actually doing this correctly.
They won't defend it in court
Here's the damning part: when this issue came up at the High Court hearing, the RTB's own legal team sought instructions and then told the court they were no longer standing over the Tribunal's decision.
So there you go: the RTB publishes guidance, their Tribunal applies it, a tenant appeals, and the RTB's own lawyers walk away from it in court. Yet the misleading guidance remains on their website.
How many cases could be affected?
This requirement has been in place since 2020, so any notice served by post in the last 5+ years where the landlord followed RTB guidance could potentially be invalid. Whether concluded cases can be reopened is a seperate question, but for anything live or recently decided, this judgment is a serious matter.
The RTB needs to update its guidance immediately and explain itself. That it has not done so already is frankly appalling.
Let me know if I've misunderstood/ misrepresented anything here. To me this is just another example of the traps that's are set for accommodation providers.
Below screenshot taken at 14:50, 26Apr2026
A High Court judgment from March 2026 has exposed a serious error in the RTB's own published guidance on notices of termination, with potentially thousands of cases affected over the past 5 years.
What happened?
A Dublin accommodation provider served a notice of termination on a tenant for non-payment of rent. The notice was posted on 21 January 2023. The tenant gave unchallenged evidence that he received it on 23 January. The Tenancy Tribunal sided with the landlord, ruling that the date of posting was the date of service.
The tenant (representing himself) appealed to the High Court and won. The judge found that a posted document is legally deemed served when it arrives in the ordinary course of post, not when it is posted. This is important as, under the RTA Act, the RTB need to be furnished with the notice of termination on the day it is served, otherwise the notice of termination is invalid. As such, in this case, the notice of termination is invalid as the NOT document was given to the RTB on the date it was posted, not served.
He also found that the notice had been signed by "Martin Property Consultants" (a name with no legal existence) when the law requires it to be signed by the landlord or their properly nominated agent. He described the notice as "hopelessly flawed" and cancelled the determination order entirely.
The RTB's own website says the opposite
The RTB's website currently tells landlords a valid notice must be uploaded at the same time it it posted (not what the RTA says, i.e. when legally served)
Below from their website (screenshot at bottom):
To be valid, a Notice of Termination must:
Include the date the notice is sent. This is the date the notice is posted, hand delivered or emailed.
...
Be sent to the RTB on the same day it is sent to the tenant. Failure to do so makes the notice invalid.
...
Step 4: Send to your tenant and the RTB
You must send the notice to your tenant and the RTB at the same time. If you don’t, it’s invalid.
You can send the notice to your tenant by post or email. If you send it by post, keep a record of postage.
Submit your notice to the RTB through the online RTB Service Centre.
Source : https://www.rtb.ie/registration-and-compliance/ending-a-tenancy/notices-of-termination
That is exactly the position the High Court has ruled is wrong. Landlords who followed this guidance in good faith, may have had their notices invalidated as a result. If posting isn't service, landlords following RTB guidance were never actually doing this correctly.
They won't defend it in court
Here's the damning part: when this issue came up at the High Court hearing, the RTB's own legal team sought instructions and then told the court they were no longer standing over the Tribunal's decision.
So there you go: the RTB publishes guidance, their Tribunal applies it, a tenant appeals, and the RTB's own lawyers walk away from it in court. Yet the misleading guidance remains on their website.
How many cases could be affected?
This requirement has been in place since 2020, so any notice served by post in the last 5+ years where the landlord followed RTB guidance could potentially be invalid. Whether concluded cases can be reopened is a seperate question, but for anything live or recently decided, this judgment is a serious matter.
The RTB needs to update its guidance immediately and explain itself. That it has not done so already is frankly appalling.
Let me know if I've misunderstood/ misrepresented anything here. To me this is just another example of the traps that's are set for accommodation providers.
Below screenshot taken at 14:50, 26Apr2026