Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Chloe  Maughan

Muckno Hotels Limited The Glencarn Hotel

Representatives

Tim O'hanrahan O'Hanrahan and Company Solicitors

Oliver Costello B.L. instructed by  Mallon Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061843-001

28/02/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Three complaints were heard at the same time.  The complainant and two witnesses (complainants in their own right) for the complainant gave evidence under oath.  The respondent was represented by counsel.

The complainant submitted that the respondent refused to honour a wedding booking and attempted to return the deposit paid for the venue and a number of bedrooms on the basis of the complainant’s membership of the travelling community.

Complainant’s evidence:

The complainant stated that she had no dealings with the respondent and that it was her grandmother who had dealt with booking the venue for her wedding.  She stated that her grandmother rang her on 27 June 2023 regarding the rental of the venue for her wedding in March 2024.  Her grandmother had just visited the venue.  She stated to her grandmother that she was happy with the venue and then went away on holidays.  She was told in later 2023 that the venue was cancelled.

The complainant stated that they had paid out for everything, around €13,000, including the Videographer who was paid in full.   She suggested that perhaps the respondents had found out that they were Travellers.

Under cross examination it was put to her that 4 months’ notice was reasonable for the venue to cancel.  She was asked when she paid for the wedding video and stated that it was paid for during the summer.  She was asked whether she had any personal contact with the hotel and replied that she did not.  It was put to her that there was no direct link between the respondent and herself.

The respondent submitted that it had no dealings with the complainant and therefore it was not providing a service to her in accordance with the Act. 

The respondent submitted that it had no dealings whatsoever with the complainant.  The complainant stated that she had no dealings with the respondent herself.  She stated that her grandmother was the only one who dealt with the hotel.

On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the complainant did not seek the provision of a service from the respondent and that the respondent was not involved in providing a service directly to the complainant.

Section 22(1) of the Equal Statues Act provides as follows:

22.—(1) 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.

The complainant did not seek a service from the respondent and accordingly I find that the complaint is misconceived.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is misconceived.

Equal Status Acts – complainant did not seek a service from respondent – misconceived.