Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

A Government Office

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00058602-001

31/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00058602-002

31/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00058602-003

31/08/2023

The complainant relies upon the Equal Status Acts to ground her complaint against the respondent who the complainant states is a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities and that when providing that service, she was discriminated against and subjected to victimisation. In this regard she states that the respondent refused to accept documentation in relation her appeal of a decision.

Section 5 (1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 provides:-

“5.—(1) 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.”

For completeness Section 2 (1) of the Act defines what constitutes a “service”:

“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,

(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;”

There is an onus on a complainant seeking redress pursuant to the Act to establish that (a) s/he sought to access a service of the respondent that was available to the public generally and (b) s/he was discriminated against on at least one of the stated grounds of discrimination. 

Section 22 of the Equal Status Acts provides for dismissal of claims as follows:-

“22.— The Director may dismiss a claim at any stage in the investigation if he or she is of opinion that the claim has been made in bad faith or is frivolous or vexatious, misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.”

It is widely accepted by the Courts that the terms are legal terms which can be often used interchangeably as held by the Barron J in Farley v Ireland, [1997] IESC 60

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

In 2005, McCracken Jreiterated this in Fay v Tegral Pipes Limited & Ors [2005] 2 IR 261, stressing that the ‘real purpose’ of the courts’ inherent jurisdiction to dismiss frivolous or vexatious claims was firstly, to ensure that the courts would be used only for the resolution of genuine disputes and not for ‘lost causes’ and, secondly, that parties would not be required to defend proceedings which could not succeed.

The terms “frivolous or vexatious” were carefully considered by the High Court in Patrick Kelly v The Information Commissioner[2014] IEHC 479 which isinstructive as to the meaning of these terms:

“As a matter of Irish law, the term “frivolous or vexatious” does not, as noted by Birmingham J. in Nowak, necessarily carry any pejorative connotations but is more concerned with the situation where the litigation (or, in this instance, application) can be described as futile, misconceived or bound to fail.

Where a person engages in a pattern of litigation (or applications as in the present instance) which not only come within those descriptions but can be said to be actuated by ill-will or bad faith, such conduct may properly be described as vexatious.”

Irvine J in the High Court in Behan v McGinley [2011] 1 I.R. 47 and reiterated by Laffoy J in Loughrey v. Dolan[2012] IEHC 578, relied on a decision of the Ontario High Court in Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1987) 37 D.L.R. (4th) 685 which listed a number of factors which tend to indicate that proceedings may potentially be vexatious in nature and thus amenable to being struck out. These factors, which are not meant to be exhaustive, are:

“• whether the issues in dispute are matters which have already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e. res judicata;

• where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action will lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can expect to obtain relief;

• where the action is brought for an improper purpose, including harassment and oppression of other parties, as opposed to asserting legitimate legal rights;

• where issues sought to be litigated tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented;

• where the person instituting the proceedings has failed to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings;

• where the plaintiff persistently takes unsuccessful appeals against judicial decisions.”

I am also mindful of the recent Court of Appeal decision; Olumide Smith and Office of the Ombudsman and Adam Kearney and Bernard Traynor and Peter Tyndall. In that case, it was found that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence at all, never mind evidence sufficient to meet even the low threshold of a prima facie case and that the appellant’s claims amount to no more than mere assertion.

In conclusion, based on all of the foregoing, I am satisfied that the within claim is misconceived. On that basis, I dismiss the complaint in accordance with Section 22 of the Equal Status Acts.

I find that the within complaint is misconceived.  On that basis, I dismiss the complaint in accordance with Section 22 of the Equal Status Acts.

Equal Status, Dismissal of Claim, misconceived