Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Teacher

Government Dept

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00024762-001

07/01/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81(e) of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00024863-001

08/01/2019

In December 2017 the Complainant lodged two complaints with the WRC, the first under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the second under section 81 of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004.   A hearing on the above complaints took place on 7th November 2018. A Decision was issued on 11th December 2018 (ADJ-00011974) which found that the complaints were not well founded.

The Complainant subsequently submitted two complaints to the WRC; CA-24762-001, under the Employment Equality Act, 1998, on 7th January 2018 and CA-24863-001, under the Pensions Act, 1990, on 8th January 2018. A hearing for these two complaints took place on 10th April 2019.

As Adjudication Officer, I have used my discretion to anonymise this decision.

The Respondent submitted that this complaint has already been dealt by the Adjudication Decision of 11th December 2018, (ADJ-00011974). The Respondent also submitted that the claim is out of time.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has not dealt with the matters she has raised. That she has been victimised and discriminated against, by reason of her gender, disability.

The term “res judicata” also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for “a matter (already) judged”. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits reopening an issue which has already been decided between the parties by a competent court or tribunal. Case law provides for finality in proceedings and to protect a party from being harassed by successive actions by another party when the issues between them were determined in the first proceedings (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100). The maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litium” translates as “it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation”. This maxim is routinely applied by Irish courts to ensure inter alia that attempts by new litigation (rather than by appeal) to attack collaterally a court’s findings will generally be prevented as an abuse of process. In this instant case, I find that the Respondent is entitled to be a protected party from being harassed by successive actions by the Complainant and it is not in the public interest to convene successive hearings on the same issue.   I find the complaints are res judicata where the complaints have already been decided and I find the complaints to be not well founded.

I find that this complaint has been dealt with in ADJ-00011974 and is therefore res judicata.

The complaint is not well founded.

The Respondent submitted that this complaint has already been dealt by the Adjudication Decision of 11th December 2018, (ADJ-00011974).

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has not dealt with the matters she has raised. The Complainant also submits that she has been discriminated against on grounds of her gender and disability.

The term “res judicata” also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for “a matter (already) judged”. The doctrine of res judicata prohibits reopening an issue which has already been decided between the parties by a competent court or tribunal. Case law provides for finality in proceedings and to protect a party from being harassed by successive actions by another party when the issues between them were determined in the first proceedings (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100). The maxim “interest republicae ut sit finis litium” translates as “it is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation”. This maxim is routinely applied by Irish courts to ensure inter alia that attempts by new litigation (rather than by appeal) to attack collaterally a court’s findings will generally be prevented as an abuse of process. In this instant case, I find that the Respondent is entitled to be a protected party from being harassed by successive actions by the Complainant and it is not in the public interest to convene successive hearings on the same issue.   I find the complaints are res judicata where the complaints have already been decided and I find the complaints to be not well founded.

I find that this complaint has been dealt with in ADJ-00011974 and is therefore res judicata.

The complaint is not well founded.

Res judicata, discrimination