ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00056360

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  21/07/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Procedure:

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

The case was originally heard on the 21st of May 2025. An appeal of a protection order from the Circuit Court was pending, which was subsequently determined, the Complainant wrote to the Adjudicator on the 28th May 2025:

FROM: Pierce Parker, Complainant TO: Adjudicator Brian Dalton DATE: 28 May 2025 REF: ADJ-00056360 (Pierce Parker -v- Patrick McCormack) RE: Judicial Reversal of Restraining Order and Relevance to Equal Status Act Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr Dalton, I would like to refer to be above-cited Equality complaint, which is before you for adjudication. I am the Complainant in the case. I wish to provide an important and timely update concerning my case referenced above. On 27 May 2025, in Circuit Court 27, the Honourable Judge Gerard Meehan reversed and struck down the District Court restraining order previously issued against me on 18 November 2024, on the basis of Respondent Patrick McCormack’s sworn affidavit. Judge Gerard Meehan held that the restraining order was entirely groundless, with no basis in evidence, and noted that no threat or endangerment whatsoever to Respondent Patrick McCormack’s personal safety had been established.

Background:

Preliminary Matter

Section 6(2) d states:

1. d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home,

The Complainant stated in his form and also at the hearing the following:

I have had an unremarkable, but very structured life until 23 October 2024 when Patrick McCormack dragged me out from my room at 11.45pm, shook me violently by the neck and knocked me down to the ground. Respondent Patrick McCormack did this to me because he was upset that I was able to communicate in Spanish with another housemate about the indoor smoking dispute that has been festering among the 11 residents at Deremville. Due to my race and gender, Respondent Patrick McCormack perceives me as a 'perpetual' teenager. I am aware that he is married to an Asian woman and has two biracial sons, but he treats Asian males considerably differently and violently less favourably

DERMVILLE, OLD DUBLIN ROAD, STILLORGAN, CO DUBLIN In violation of Section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, Respondent Patrick McCormack operates a mass illegal migrant rental dwelling unit at Dermville. He subdivided the living room, the dining room, emptied out the attics and extended the backside and the right side of this small house to create a total of 11 rental bedrooms. Respondent Patrick McCormack resides with the 10 tenants at Dermville, as the landlord. The 10 Dermville tenants pay monthly rent of approximately €7,300 in total, an average of €730 per person, and they are: 1) COMPLAINANT PIERCE PARKER, who commenced residency on 01 April 2024; 2),redacted who commenced residency in September 2024; ) ,3)redacted who commenced residency 3 years ago; ) ,4) who commenced residency in October 2024; ,5) who commenced residency 3 years ago; 6)who commenced residency on 01 April 2024; , 7) who commenced residency in early 2024; 8)  who commenced residency in August 2024; 9)  who commenced residency in October 2024; and 10)  who commenced residency 3 years ago. None of the 10 Dermville tenants is Irish. Only a handful speak English well enough to communicate. None is registered with the Residential Tenancies Board (‘RTB’). This enables Respondent Patrick McCormack to admit and evict tenants arbitrarily. His usual eviction modus operandi is to tell the tenant that he needs the room back because ‘his wife and children are returning from Spain’.

Section 6 of the Act states:

Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(a) the disposal of any estate or interest in premises by will or gift,

(b) F19[…]

(c) any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public,

(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home,

The facts show that a room is rented to the Complainant in the Respondent’s home and that accommodation was not self-contained.

The Complainant is asking that the relevant provision be set aside. The Interpretation Act 2005 contains the relevant provisions:

5.—(1) In construing a provision of any Act (other than a provision that relates to the imposition of a penal or other sanction)—

(a) that is obscure or ambiguous, or

(b) that on a literal interpretation would be absurd or would fail to reflect the plain intention of—

(i) in the case of an Act to which paragraph (a) of the definition of “Act” in section 2 (1) relates, the Oireachtas, or

(ii) in the case of an Act to which paragraph (b) of that definition relates, the parliament concerned, the provision shall be given a construction that reflects the plain intention of the Oireachtas or parliament concerned, as the case may be, where that intention can be ascertained from the Act as a whole.

(2) In construing a provision of a statutory instrument (other than a provision that relates to the imposition of a penal or other sanction)—

(a) that is obscure or ambiguous, or

(b) that on a literal interpretation would be absurd or would fail to reflect the plain intention of the instrument as a whole in the context of the enactment (including the Act) under which it was made, the provision shall be given a construction that reflects the plain intention of the maker of the instrument where that intention can be ascertained from the instrument as a whole in the context of that enactment.

Construing provisions in changing circumstances.

6.—In construing a provision of any Act or statutory instrument, a court may make allowances for any changes in the law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words used in that Act or statutory instrument and other relevant matters, which have occurred since the date of the passing of that Act or the making of that statutory instrument, but only in so far as its text, purpose and context permit.

Supplemental provision to sections 5 and 6.

7.—(1) In construing a provision of an Act for the purposes of section 5 or 6 , a court may, notwithstanding section 18 (g), make use of all matters that accompany and are set out in—

(a) in the case of an Act of the Oireachtas, the signed text of such law as enrolled for record in the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 25.4.5° of the Constitution.

(b) in the case of an Act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Éireann, the signed text of such law as enrolled for record in the office of such officer of the Supreme Court of Saorstát Éireann as Dáil Éireann determined pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann),

(c) in the case of any other Act, such text of that Act as corresponds to the text of the Act enrolled in the manner referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that a copy of the text of an Act that is required to be judicially noticed is a copy of the text to which subsection (1) relates.

On the plain reading of the Equal Status Act the provisions set out at section 6(d) are not ambiguous, that preclude a private dwelling from the ambit of the Act, and for the purposes of the Act renting a room in a private house is not service to ground  a claim for discrimination  and the provision of rental accommodation, even where that private residence houses 10 paying guests.  

However, section 6 of the Interpretation Act would appear to also provide for the consideration of Construing provisions in changing circumstances.

6.—In construing a provision of any Act or statutory instrument, a court may make allowances for any changes in the law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words used in that Act or statutory instrument and other relevant matters, which have occurred since the date of the passing of that Act or the making of that statutory instrument, but only in so far as its text, purpose and context permit.

This provision only applies in so far as its text, purpose and context permits.

A previous definition of premises as originally enacted has been subsequently amended:

(4) Premises shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (2) as small premises if—

(a) in the case of premises comprising residential accommodation for more than one household, there is not normally accommodation in the premises for more than three households, or

(b) in any other case, there is not normally residential accommodation in the premises for more than six persons in addition to a person mentioned in those paragraphs and any persons residing with that person.

This provision is referenced as amended as follows on the Law Reform Commission Revised Acts:

F19

Deleted (18.07.2004) by Equality Act 2004 (24/2004), s. 49(a), commenced on enactment.

Previously the exclusion was limited to a small premises:

(d) the provision of accommodation in premises where—

(i) the person providing the accommodation or a person who is a near relative of that person intends to continue to reside, or in the immediate future to take up residence, in the premises or a part thereof, and

(ii) the premises in question are small premises,

It must follow from this amendment that the legislator intended that no occupancy limit should be placed on a private dwelling for the purposes of the Equal Status Act and whether the premises was covered by the Equal Status Act if the number of paying residents reached a certain number, more akin to a business.

 However, a dwelling would be subject to the Housing Act 1966 section 63:

Definition of “overcrowding”.

63.—A house shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and the number of rooms therein either—

(a) are such that any two of those persons, being persons of ten years of age or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room, or

(b) are such that the free air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet (the height of the room, if it exceeds eight feet, being taken to be eight feet, for the purpose of calculating free air space), and “overcrowding” shall be construed accordingly.

 Arising from this analysis I must find and conclude that the Respondent is not discriminating as the Act specifically precludes a private dwelling from its reach:

Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(a) the disposal of any estate or interest in premises by will or gift,

(b) F19[…]

(c) any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public,

(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home,

The characteristics of the occupancy of this resident along with the other residents were confined to a room and did not consist of self-contained accommodation.

I must find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct with reference to section 6

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

Dated:   22-09-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Brian Dalton

Key Words: