ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00057314

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  08/08/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

PRELIMINARY MATTER:

Insufficient Particulars or failure to provide sufficient detail:

By analogy in Court civil proceedings a case will be dismissed or struck out if sufficient detail is not provided concerning the wrong alleged against the Respondent:

I note in Delaney and McGrath (4th Ed 2018 Round Hall)

5-82

An example of a case where sufficient particulars of negligence were not provided is Mitchell v Arthurs.188 The plaintiff workman sued for damages arising out of the fall of bricks from scaffolding and pleaded that the defendant “so carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully erected the scaffolding, that a large number of bricks fell on the plaintiff”. The statement of claim was struck out as embarrassing on the basis that it merely made a general plea of negligence and failed to specify the particular defects in the scaffolding of which complaint was made.

I also note in Civil Proceedings Delaney and McGrath cite:

If a party is not satisfied that sufficient  particulars of his opponent’s claim have been given, the proper course of action is to bring a motion to compel replies rather than a motion to strike out the pleading on the ground that it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant Order 19 rule 28: Tromso Sparebank v Beirne, High Court (Costello J), 14 March 1988.

On the written submission and based on the evidence presented at the hearing there is not sufficient detail so that the employer knows what case they must answer.

I note that in ISS Limited v Zhivko Mitsov (DWT1159) the Court stated that there is no provision in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 as amended to serve a notice for particulars. While I accept that proposition, a tribunal can set procedures that are fair which would include the right for a party to provide further or better particulars. That is what happened in this case and the Complainant was given an opportunity to amend their complaint form and resubmit the complaint with more detail. The time to make that change has elapsed by some weeks.

Dispute Procedures Flexible/Informal:

I also note that In County Louth Vocational Educational Committee v the Equality Tribunal and Pearse Brannignan [2016] IESC 40 2016 Mr. Justice John MacMenamin, the Court stated that:

Consideration

47. It is well established that the purpose of a deciding body or tribunal, such as the respondent Tribunal, is to provide speedy and effective redress in cases of alleged discrimination. It is not in dispute the procedures employed may be both informal and flexible. It is true, as Mr. Gerard Durcan, S.C., counsel for the Tribunal, submits, that the range of claimants before such a Tribunal do not fit into any one category. They may or may not be legally represented and, therefore, flexibility is both warranted and necessary.

In this case the Complainant is a lay-litigant therefore flexibility should be exercised in so far as that flexibility is merited and is fair to both parties.

Dismiss Claim as Misconceived:

I also note as cited in Delaney and McGrath that the Superior Courts have clarified when claims in the courts should be dismissed as misconceived:

Basis on which the Jurisdiction Will Be Exercised

16-06

It is well-established that the jurisdiction conferred by Order 19, rule 28 is exercisable by reference to the pleadings only. In McCabe v Harding11 O'Higgins CJ stressed that, in order for rule 28 to apply, “vexation or frivolity must appear from the pleadings alone”, a point that was reiterated by Costello J in Barry v Buckley,12 who stated that “the court can only make an order under this rule when a pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action on its face”. This basic principle was reaffirmed by Costello J in D.K. v King,13 where he stated that rule 28 only applies where it can be shown that the text of the plaintiff’s summons or statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action or that the action is frivolous or vexatious. So, for the purposes of considering whether to accede to an application based on rule 28, the court should consider the pleadings14 only, ignoring any affidavit evidence filed,15 and further must proceed on the basis that any statements of fact contained in the pleading sought to be struck out are true and can be proved by the party.16 Clarke J made it clear in Salthill Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc17 that “the court must accept the facts as asserted in the plaintiff’s claim, for if the facts so asserted are such that they would, if true, give rise to a cause of action then the proceedings do disclose a potentially valid claim.” As Baker J stated in Wilkinson v Ardbrook Homes Ltd,18 the approach of the court should be “to ask whether the plaintiff could possibly succeed on the case as pleaded and in the light of the facts asserted, and only if it is satisfied that a plaintiff could not possibly establish those facts, or could not possibly succeed on the pleadings, should the proceedings be struck out.”

On the facts no case has been made out by the Complainant and in these circumstances the case should be dismissed for failing to provide sufficient detail so that the Respondent knows what case they must answer.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Dated:   17th October  2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Key Words: