Introduction
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them. We do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies, including: Private Equity Recruitment; Icon Clinical Research Limited; Centrus Corporate Finance Limited; National Treasury Management Agency; S & P Global Inc; The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland; Irish Life Group Services Limited; Electricity Supply Board ESB; Marsh & Mclennon Companies Inc; O’Dwyer Property Management Ltd; O’Dwyer Real Estate Management; Bank Of Montreal Europe P.L.C.;BMO Capital Markets; and SSE PLC SSE Airtricity Electricity.
Background
Mr. O’Connor alleged discrimination based on religious grounds and asserted a complaint for a breach of employment equality legislation against the Irish Government and a number of other entities.
The narrative statement in the complaint form included the following:
“My complaint for breach of employment equality legislation is noted against the Irish Government and affiliated worldwide international Governments who on religious grounds have pursued a highly personalised campaign against me due to my close association with the spiritual workings of the universe and the fact that a virus (COVID 19) emanated out of a valid legal case which I tried to bring before the Irish courts against my employer …”
The cumulative outcome was to dismiss the complaints as frivolous or vexatious. This article sheds light on the legislation and case law cited by the respondents to contest the claims made against them.
Case Law
Birmingham J., in Nowak v. Data Protection Commissioner [2012] IEHC 499, defined “frivolous” as not just foolish or silly but also as a complaint that is futile, misconceived, or incapable of achieving the desired outcome. The case of J. O’N -v- S McD & ors [2013] IEHC 135 further clarified that “frivolous” and “vexatious” are legal terms indicating that the plaintiff has no reasonable chance of succeeding, imposing a hardship on the defendant.
Birmingham J., in dismissing the plaintiff’s case, stated, “In my view, the plaintiff has no reasonable chance of succeeding against the first named defendant, and it would be oppressive to require the defendant to have to take on the burden of defending proceedings which are fundamentally misconceived.”
The decision in Goode Concrete v. CRH plc [2012] IEHC 116 emphasised a crucial aspect of legal proceedings. Paragraph 36 underscored that a plaintiff’s right of access to the courts is not absolute. Further, the court holds jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of this right, whether due to inordinate delay or if a case is deemed frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail. This principle, articulated in the decision, aligns with the broader legal perspective that courts can intervene to dismiss cases in order to prevent injustice to a defendant, as established in the precedent set by Barry v Buckley [1981] IR 306. It underscored the dual responsibility of the court to ensure access to justice while safeguarding against the misuse of legal processes, maintaining a delicate balance in the pursuit of fairness and equity within the legal system.
The Adjudication Officer relied on various authorities, including John and Angela Tongans and Children -v- Clare County Council (DEC-S2008-039), Fitzgerald v Minister for Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [2011] IEHC 180, Fay -v- Tegral Pipes Limited & Ors [2005] 2 IR 261, Moylist Construction Ltd v Doheny [2016] IESC 9, and Kevin Tracey v. Irish Times Ltd. & Ors [2019] IESC 62.
Conclusion
The reference to the decision in A Complainant v A Newspaper (ADJ-00037564) provides valuable insight into the criteria for identifying potentially vexatious complaints. Drawing on the Canadian case of Re Lang Michener and Fabian, (1987) 37 D.L.R. (4th) 685, the Adjudication Officer delineated key factors indicative of vexatious proceedings.
These factors, though not exhaustive, include assessing whether the issues in dispute have already been determined by a court, determining the obvious lack of success or potential good from the action, evaluating if the litigation serves an improper purpose such as harassment or oppression rather than asserting legitimate legal rights, observing a pattern where issues are perpetually re-litigated and extended into subsequent actions, considering the failure to pay costs from prior unsuccessful proceedings, and scrutinising persistent unsuccessful appeals against judicial decisions.
