Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

EU Member States

Representatives

Act

Complaints Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000

CA-00050657-001

17/05/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000

CA-00050714-001

19/05/2022

CA-00050657-001 and CA-00050714-001 are duplicate complaints.

The complainant seeks to progress what he describes as “a business-related human rights abuse case” involving social human rights, tortious interference, internal market issues and European law, including the respondent’s failure to implement European directives and to provide him with a right to an effective remedy pursuant to European Union law. The complainant identifies the relevant protected grounds as religion and victimisation and refers to discrimination and harassment in this regard.

The Equal Status Act 2000 (the “Act”) prohibits discrimination and other related behaviour on specific grounds in connection with the provision of goods and services, the provision of accommodation and access to education.  

Section 5(1) of the Act provides:-

“A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.”

Section 2 defines goods as meaning “any articles of movable property” and service as meaning: -

“… 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,

(c) a service or facility provided by a club (whether or not it is a club holding a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999) which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, and

(d) a professional or trade service,

but does not include pension rights (within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998) or a service or facility in relation to which that Act applies;”

Section 21 of the Act provides that a person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her, may, subject to the section, seek redress by referring the case to the Workplace Relations Commission. 

A respondent, against whom the allegations are made, and redress is sought, is defined in section 20 as: -

“a person who is alleged by a complainant in a case under section 21(1) to have engaged in prohibited conduct.”

Section 22 of the Act provides for dismissal of a claim as follows:-

“The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission 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.”

I note the judgment of Barron J in Farley v Ireland [1997] IESC 60 where he stated that it is widely accepted by the Courts that the terms “frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms which are often used interchangeably:-

“So far as the legality of matters is concerned frivolous and vexatious are legal terms.  They are not a pejorative in the 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.

Similarly, it is a hardship on the defendant to have to take steps to defend something which cannot succeed, and the law calls that vexatious.”

Birmingham J reiterated in Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner [2012 IEHC 449] that the terms frivolous or vexatious do not necessarily carry any pejorative connotations and stated: -

“Frivolous, in this context does not mean only foolish or silly, but rather a complaint that was futile, or misconceived or hopeless in the sense that it was incapable of achieving the desired outcome …”

Mr Justice McCracken in Fay v Tegral Pipes Limited [2005 IESC 34] addressed the purpose of the Court’s jurisdiction to strike out as being to ensure that there would not be an abuse of Court process and further stated:-

“Such abuse cannot be permitted for two reasons. Firstly, the Courts are entitled to ensure that the privilege of access to the Courts, which is of considerable constitutional importance in relation to genuine disputes between parties, will only be used for the resolution of genuine disputes, and not as a forum for lost causes which, no matter how strongly the party concerned may feel about them, nevertheless have no basis for a complaint in law. The second, and equally important, purpose of the jurisdiction is to ensure that litigants will not be subjected to the time consuming, expensive and worrying process of being asked to defend a claim which cannot succeed.”

The prohibited conduct in respect of which redress can be awarded under the Act is that of discrimination and harassment where it is related to any of the protected grounds and occurs in the context of a person disposing of goods or providing a service.  Discrimination involves less favourable treatment or being put at a particular disadvantage.  Harassment involves unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. 

I have carefully reviewed the documentation submitted by the complainant to the Workplace Relations Commission and the complainant’s communications with the Commission, up to and including correspondence dated 26 June 2023, in relation to this matter.  I have considered in particular the complainant’s submissions regarding the nature of his complaints and conclude that the complaints do not concern the disposal of goods or provision of a service within the meaning of the Act.  I am further of the view that the Act is incapable of achieving the desired outcome in circumstances where the matters complained of do not concern prohibited conduct directed against the complainant by the respondent/s.  It is my view that the complaints fail to show an arguable cause of action pursuant to the Act and are therefore frivolous or misconceived.

In the circumstances, and where the claims are duplicate claims, I dismiss both claims in accordance with section 22 of the Act.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the claims in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of those Acts.  However, section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 provides that a claim may be dismissed at any stage if an opinion is formed that the claim is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

CA-00050657-001

It is my opinion that the claim is frivolous or misconceived for the reasons outlined above.  Accordingly, I dismiss the claim in accordance with section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

CA-00050714-001

This is a duplicate claim of CA-00050657-001, which I also dismiss in accordance with section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Equal Status Act – dismissal of claim – frivolous – misconceived