ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055006

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondents
Parties	William Gallagher	Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan

Representatives

Anna Sheehan, Solicitor, The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Jenny Brennan

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act 2000	CA-00067032-001	30/10/2024
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act 2000	CA-00069592-001	26/02/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearings: 01/05/2025 and 01/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Procedure:

In accordance with section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The hearings were conducted by way of a remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The hearings of the within complaints were convened and heard by me in conjunction with one other complaint bearing file reference ADJ-00058029 and this decision should be read in conjunction with the same.

At the adjudication hearings I advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and that the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing otherwise. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.

I advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants gave their evidence under affirmation.

I allowed the right to test the oral evidence presented by way of cross-examination.

William Gallagher attended the hearings and was represented by Anna Sheehan, Solicitor, of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. He is hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”.

The Complainant referred three complaints to the WRC: CA-00067032-001 and CA-00069592-001 bearing adjudication reference ADJ-00055006 and CA-00070617-001 bearing adjudication reference ADJ-00058029. Jenny Brennan is named as the Respondent in the two complaints under ADJ-00055006. Matthew Hannigan is named as the Respondent in the complaint under ADJ-00058029.

At the first scheduled hearing of the complaints on the 1st May 2025 there was no appearance by Matthew Hannigan. Jenny Brennan attended the hearing and confirmed that she was acting on her own behalf and on behalf of Matthew Hannigan.

Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan attended the rescheduled hearing on the 1st September 2025 and confirmed that: Jenny Brennan had Matthew Hannigan’s authority to act on his behalf, Matthew Hannigan was the owner of the rental property in which the Complainant resided at the material time (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”), Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan were co-landlords of the Property, Jenny Brennan was the property manager of the Property and that the correct respondents were Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan.

Jenny Brennan is hereinafter referred to as “the First Named Respondent” and Matthew Hannigan is hereinafter referred to as “the Second Named Respondent”. Together they are referred to as “the Respondents”.

The evidence and arguments presented in ADJ-00055006 and ADJ-00058029 were the same.

In light if the foregoing I have amended the name of the Respondents cited in this decision and the decision in ADJ-00058029 and I have addressed the complaints and set out my findings, conclusions and decision in the decision in adjudication reference ADJ-00058029.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under Statute.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation from both parties. All relevant evidence and supporting documentation presented by both parties prior to and during the hearings have been taken into consideration.

I am not required to provide a line-by-line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 wherein it was held that “… minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals .. the duty on administrative tribunals is to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need to be given…”.

Background:

At all material times the Complainant was a tenant and the Respondents were landlords.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant relied on the narrative set out in the WRC complaint forms and the written submissions furnished to the WRC on his behalf in advance of the hearing, which was supplemented by oral evidence. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondents.

The Complainant alleged discrimination on the housing assistance ground since the 3rd January 2024 when he requested that the Respondents complete and sign the landlord section of the HAP application form. The Complainant denied that during the course of a telephone call with the First Named Respondent on the 3rd January 2024 he agreed not to pursue his application for HAP or that during the said telephone call the First Named Respondent advised him that the Respondents were selling the Property.

The Complainant further alleged that the service of three notices of termination, the first signed by both Respondents and the latter two signed by the Second Named Respondent only, amounted to discrimination and victimisation on the basis that the Respondents would not have issued the said notices of termination when they did had the Complainant not requested that the Respondents complete the HAP application form or had he not sent ES1 forms to the Respondents or referred complaints to the WRC due to the Respondents delay and failure to sign the HAP application form.

The Complainant gave evidence of the significant financial and personal strain caused by the Respondents refusal and/or delay to complete the landlord section of the HAP application form and the financial difficulty he faced trying to make his rent payments on a monthly basis.

The Complainant qualified for a monthly HAP contribution from Kildare County Council to the sum of €1,012 of his €1,300 rent payable to the Respondents.

The Complainant confirmed that after 15 months the Respondents completed Part B of the HAP application form and since the 28th April 2025 he has been in receipt of HAP.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondents were represented by the First Named Respondent at the hearings who furnished documentation to the WRC in advance of the hearings. I heard from the First Named Respondent and the Second Named Respondent and the evidence adduced by them was challenged as appropriate by the Complainant’s Representative.

The Respondents denied that they discriminated or victimised the Complainant. They stated that the landlord section of the HAP application form was not completed by the Respondents because the First Named Respondent and the Complainant had an agreement following a telephone conversation on the 3rd January 2024 that the Complainant would not pursue his application for HAP because the Respondents intended selling the Property.

The Respondents stated that it was always their intention to sell the Property. The First Named Respondent referred on a number occasions to an email of the 18th May 2023 from her to a financial institution as evidencing the Respondents intention to sell the Property at the material time. The Respondents accepted that as of September 2025 the Property had not been sold.

On a number of occasions the Respondents referred to personal issues which were ongoing during the material time and they stated that the personal issues were the reason for their failure to engage with the Complainant’s request to complete the landlord section of the HAP application form.

Under cross-examination the Respondents denied that the hearing was the first occasion on which it was alleged that there was an agreement between the First Named Respondent and the Complainant not to complete the HAP application form. It was accepted by the Respondents that the ES2 Form sent to the Complainant around the 19th June 2024 made no reference to an agreement reached on the 3rd January 2024 not to complete the HAP application form or pursue HAP and that it made no reference to an intention on the part of the Respondents to sell the Property. It was accepted that the First Named Respondent stated on the ES2 Form that “I clearly advised the tenant that we were currently selling our other property and that I would look into his request in due course” and that the reason the HAP application forms were not completed was because the Respondents were “selling our other property, personal issues also – mum – knee replacement dad-stroke, mother-in-law cancer.”

The Second Named Respondent stated that he left all matters relating to the Property to the First Named Respondent to deal with and that she was capable of doing so. The First Named Respondent accepted that she did not sign the HAP applications forms when she was asked to do so. She stated that due to personal reasons she could not deal with the requests at the time they were made as she was not in the right frame of mind.

The First Named Respondent denied that she ever refused to complete the HAP application form and in this regard she made reference to an email sent by her to the WRC and the Complainant’s Representative in December 2024. When questioned on the matter she accepted that she stated in the email that up until that point she had not completed the HAP application form because she had “more valid things to focus on”.

The First Named Respondent stated she completed Part B of the HAP application form and submitted it to Kildare County Council some time in February 2025.

Findings and Conclusions:

The within complaints have been addressed under ADJ-00058029.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

The within complaints have been addressed under ADJ-00058029.

Dated: 9th of October 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Christina Ryan

Key Words: