ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012291
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberto Alamazani | Arthur Cox |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00016248-001 | 10/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00016249-001 | 10/12/2017 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 (the Act), following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and I firstly considered as a preliminary matter if I have jurisdiction to hear the complaint and if the claim is properly before me for investigation pursuant to the powers to investigate under the Act.
Background:
The complainant makes two complaints against the respondent Law Firm arising from being cross examined during an adjudication investigation on the 18th September 2017. He states: am offended that a counsellor working for Arthur Cox mocked my financial situations during a hearing on 18/09/2017 at WRC. This is unacceptable. I feel demeaned, insulted and discriminated. It's against the law discriminating people as clearly stated under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. The way I was treated is discriminating against me and victimizing me because I am black. I strongly believe that if I was white, the treatment will be different And: am offended that a counsellor working for Arthur Cox mocked my ill health during a hearing on 18/09/2017 at WRC. This is unacceptable. I feel demeaned, insulted and discriminated. It's against the law discriminating people as clearly stated under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. The way I was treated is discriminating against me and victimizing me because I am black. I strongly believe that if I was white, the treatment will be different. |
Preliminary Matter
Jurisdiction
The complainant states that he has been discriminated against by a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities. Specifically, he brings a complaint against a respondent Law Firm arising from being cross examined by a partner of the firm during the investigation of a complaint that he had brought. This complaint is misconceived as the respondent solicitor was not providing a service to the complainant nor is he under any obligation to provide a service to him. The matter at issue relates to the complainant taking issue with how he was cross examined during an adjudication hearing. Cross examination during a hearing and investigation of a dispute is not a service as defined in the Act. Adjudication concerns the administration of justice and is not a service as defined in the Act.
At section 2 of the Act a service is defined as:
“ service” means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—
( a) access to and the use of any place,
( b) facilities for—
(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,
(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,
(iii) cultural activities, or
(iv) transport or travel,
And section 14 of the Act states:
14.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting—
( a) the taking of any action that is required by or under—
(i) any enactment or order of a court,
Cross examination is a fundamental right of a respondent so that they can defend a claim brought under the Equal Status Act and is a bedrock of the administration of justice. While it is arguable whether a respondent advocate possesses absolute immunity; he most definitely is immune from suit for defending his client’s interests without fear or favour. Also, the Act cannot be used in this way as the matters complained of are not services. This claim is made in error or on a misunderstanding of the Act and it not capable of achieving its desired outcome. No redress exists under the Act against the firm for properly defending their client’s interest. A party who takes exception to how a hearing is conducted has other forms of redress; however, it does not exist in the Act now being relied upon. These claims are vexatious and misconceived and therefore I dismiss them. There is no basis to ground a claim of vicarious liability against the firm based on dislike of being cross examined during an adjudication hearing.
Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a claim to be dismissed if it is found to be misconceived and or vexatious. As I have formed the opinion that this claim is misconceived and vexatious; I dismiss both complaints.
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act. However, section 22 of the Act provides that a complaint may be dismissed at any time if an opinion is formed that the claim is misconceived and/ or vexatious.
CA-00016248-001 Cross examination is a fundamental right of a respondent so that they can defend a claim brought under the Equal Status Act and is a bedrock of the administration of justice. While it is arguable whether a respondent advocate possesses absolute immunity; he most definitely is immune from suit for defending his client’s interests without fear or favour. Also, the Act cannot be used in this way as the matters complained of are not services. This claim is made in error or on a misunderstanding of the Act and it not capable of achieving its desired outcome. No redress exists under the Act against the firm for properly defending their client’s interest. A party who takes exception to how a hearing is conducted has other forms of redress; however, it does not exist in the Act now being relied upon. This claim is vexatious and misconceived and therefore I dismiss it. There is no basis to ground a claim of vicarious liability against the firm based on dislike of being cross examined during an adjudication hearing. Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a claim to be dismissed if it is found to be misconceived and or vexatious. As I have formed the opinion that this claim is misconceived and vexatious; I dismiss the complaint. CA-00016249-001 Cross examination is a fundamental right of a respondent so that they can defend a claim brought under the Equal Status Act and is a bedrock of the administration of justice. While it is arguable whether a respondent advocate possesses absolute immunity; he most definitely is immune from suit for defending his client’s interests without fear or favour. Also, the Act cannot be used in this way as the matters complained of are not services. This claim is made in error or on a misunderstanding of the Act and it not capable of achieving its desired outcome. No redress exists under the Act against the firm for properly defending their client’s interest. A party who takes exception to how a hearing is conducted has other forms of redress; however, it does not exist in the Act now being relied upon. This claim is vexatious and misconceived and therefore I dismiss it. There is no basis to ground a claim of vicarious liability against the firm based on dislike of being cross examined during an adjudication hearing. Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a claim to be dismissed if it is found to be misconceived and or vexatious. As I have formed the opinion that this claim is misconceived and vexatious; I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 17-09-21
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Vexatious-Misconceived- |