ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012394
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberto Alamazani | Kevin Langford |
Representatives |
| Arthur Cox |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00016251-001 | 10/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00016252-001 | 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 Solicitor arising from being cross examined during an adjudication investigation on the 18th September 2017. He states: I am offended that you've 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. And: I am offended that you've 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 |
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 Solicitor arising from being cross examined by him 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 was 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 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 in order to defend a claim brought under Equal Status Act and is a bedrock of the administration of justice. While it is arguable whether an advocate possesses absolute immunity; he most definitely is immune from suit for defending his client’s interests without fear or favour. This claim is vexatious and misconceived and therefore I dismiss the claim.
Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a claim to be dismissed if it is found to be misconceived. 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.
CA-00016251-001 The complainant relies upon the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended to ground a claim and states that he has been discriminated against by a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities. The complaint is made against a respondent Solicitor who cross examined the complainant during an adjudication hearing. The complainant in error or a misunderstanding of the scope of the Equal Status Act brings this complaint. Cross examination is not a service. The respondent solicitor has provided no service to the complainant. The adjudication hearing is not a service for the purposes of the Act. I have formed the opinion that the complaint made against the respondent Solicitor is misconceived and vexatious. The complaints arise from being cross examined and this does not constitute a service as defined in the Act. The advocate in any case is immune from suit by the complainant for defending his client during cross examination. Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a complaint to be dismissed at any time if an opinion is formed that the complaint is misconceived. As I have formed the opinion that the complaint is misconceived pursuant to section 22, I dismiss the claim and determine that I have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. CA-00016252-001 The complainant relies upon the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended to ground a claim and states that he has been discriminated against by a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities. The complaint is made against a respondent Solicitor who cross examined the complainant during an adjudication hearing. This cannot be construed as a service for the purposes of section 2 of the Act and is also out of scope of the Act as referenced at section 14 of the Act; in so far as the matters arise during a statutory investigation. I have formed the opinion that the complaint made against the respondent Solicitor is misconceived and vexatious. The complaint arises from being cross examined and this does not constitute a service as defined in the Act. The advocate in any case is immune from suit by the complainant for defending his client during cross examination. Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides for a complaint to be dismissed at any time if an opinion is formed that the complaint is misconceived. As I have formed that opinion that the complaint is misconceived pursuant to section 22, I dismiss the claim and determine that I have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. |
Dated: 17-09-21
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Service-Advocate Immunity from Suit |