Merck KGaA & Ors v Merck Sharpe & Dohme Llc & Anor (Approved) [2025] IESC 49 (26 November 2025)

Merck KGaA & Ors v Merck Sharpe & Dohme Llc & Anor (Approved) [2025] IESC 49 (26 November 2025)

The exclusion of children under 18 from statutory tenancy succession under s.39(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is a rational legislative distinction, commonly drawn in law and the Constitution, and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 40.1. The provision treats all minors equally, and the differentiation is justified by the legislative objective of balancing tenant security with property rights. There is no discrimination on the basis of parental marital status, and the age-based distinction is not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational.

Citation
[2025] IESC 49
Parties
Applicant/appellant: ZG; Applicant/appellant: EW (a minor suing by his aunt and next friend ZG); Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Notice Party: Clúid Housing Association; Amicus Curiae: Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; constitutional challenge rejected.
Legal Topics
Equality Before the Law, Succession to Tenancy, Age Discrimination, Rights of Children, Statutory Interpretation
Constitutional Law Landlord and Tenant Law Housing Law Equality Before the Law Succession to Tenancy Age Discrimination Rights of Children Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ZG

Applicant/appellant

EW (a minor suing by his aunt and next friend ZG)

Applicant/appellant

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Clúid Housing Association

Notice Party

Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.39(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is unconstitutional for excluding children under 18 from statutory tenancy succession
  2. 2 Whether the provision discriminates on the basis of age or parental marital status in breach of Article 40.1 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the legislative distinction between adults and minors is rational and constitutionally permissible

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of children under 18 from statutory tenancy succession under s.39(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is a rational legislative distinction, commonly drawn in law and the Constitution, and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 40.1. The provision treats all minors equally, and the differentiation is justified by the legislative objective of balancing tenant security with property rights. There is no discrimination on the basis of parental marital status, and the age-based distinction is not arbitrary, capricious, or irrational.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; constitutional challenge rejected.

Orders

  • Section 39(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 is not repugnant to the Constitution.
  • No order for relief in favour of the applicants.