EDA1131

Introduction

This is an appeal by Mr Mohamed Hassan (hereafter the Complainant) against the decision of the Equality Tribunal in his claim of discrimination against HSE Addiction Services (hereafter the Respondent) under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008. The complaint to the Equality Tribunal alleged discrimination on grounds of race. The Equality Tribunal dismissed the complaint pursuant to s.77A of the Act, which provides as follows: -

• • (1) The Director may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

    (2)

    • (a) Not later than 42 days after the Director dismisses a claim under this section , the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Labour Court on notice to the Director specifying the grounds of the appeal.
    (b) On the appeal the Labour Court may affirm or quash the decision.]
  
  
  
  

Conclusions of the Court

While the precise basis of the within appeal is not clear from the submission filed by the Complainant it is clear that the claim which he brought before the Equality Tribunal related solely to his dismissal in 2005. The complaint was lodged with the Equality Tribunal on 16th August 2008. Having regard to the time limit prescribed by s. 77(5), at the time it was lodged, the claim was statute barred and any cause of action under the Act which the Complainant may have had in relation to his dismissal was extinguished. Hence, the Equality Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

InFarely v Ireland & Ors, (Unreported, Supreme Court, Murphy, Lynch Barron JJ,1st May 1997), Barron J explained the legal meaning to be ascribed to the term frivolous as follows: -

• “So far as the legality of the matter is concerned frivolous and vexatious are legal terms, they are not pejorative in any sense or possibly in the sense that Mr Farley may think they are. It is merely a question of saying that so far as the plaintiff is concerned if he has no reasonable chance of succeeding then the law says that it is frivolous to bring the case”.

In the course of the appeal the Complainant sought to raise other issues in relation to his employment. Having sought further information concerning the scope of the claim referred to the Equality Tribunal, the Court is satisfied that none of these matters were before the Equality Tribunal. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is founded upon the decision of the Equality Tribunal and new issues cannot be raised in an appeal which were not before the Equality Tribunal.

Determination

For all of the above reasons the Court is satisfied that the decision of the Equality Tribunal is correct. That decision is affirmed and the within appeal is disallowed.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
2nd December, 2011______________________
DNChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.