Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dion  Byrne

Humphrey Lynch

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071495-001

12/05/2025

On 12 May 2025, the Complainant submitted a complaint under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 that he had been discriminated against by a person who provides goods and services.

He named that person as the Respondent, Humphrey Lynch.

Mr. Byrne framed his complaint on his Housing Assistance grounds in relation to accommodation and received indirect discrimination. He outlined that he had been harassed, citing the first incident of discrimination as 10 December 2022 and the most recent date of discrimination as 14 November 2024.

A most important omission on his complaint form was the lack of a visible ES1 form or its equivalent.

The statement of complaint

“Fell into arrears when made unemployed and they would not accept HAP.”

The Complainant indicated that his partner would testify in Court.

On 27 May 2025, the WRC requested the following information from the Complainant in the course of their validation checks.

“What date did you notify the person/ service provider using the ES1 form?”

On 27 June 2025, the complaint was notified to the Respondent.

On that day, the complainant was once again requested to “forward a copy of the ES1 and proof of postage “

On 7 July 2025, Catherine Lynch responded on behalf of the respondent which denied discrimination against the complainant.

On 15 June 2026, the WRC invited both parties to attend a hearing on this case, scheduled for 17 August 2026 in Cork.

On 18 June 2026 at 22.58 hrs., the complainant indicated that he was seeking an adjournment of the upcoming court proceedings relating to my housing issue due to his efforts to find a Solicitor to represent him.

On the next day, the WRC wrote back and told the complainant that he had omitted his adj number, that his quest for legal representation alone would not satisfy the test for postponement of hearing and he was directed to attend the hearing in his case.

On 22 June 2026 at 00.08 hrs., the Complainant sought details of his hearing.

On that same day at 10.44 hrs. the WRC resented the notification of hearing, rules for postponement, and request for written submission in the case.

On 22 June 2026 at 20.34 hrs., the complainant sought to distance himself from the documentation received.

On 23 June 2026 at 22.02 hrs. the complainant submitted:

“Am I am talking with AI or am I dealing with a real person, can someone tell me about a date for the court !! how can I arrive to a place I don’t know or don’t know when to be there this getting very unprofessional and ridiculous. I have told you I don’t have a letter ……….”

On 24 June 2026 at 9.53 hrs. the hearing details were once more shared with the complainant through a PSDF version of the hearing letter. The Case Officer also included details of the hearing in the body of the email.

On 27 July 2026, in preparation for hearing, I wrote the following letter to both parties.

I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear this case on 17 August 2026 at 12.30 pm.

My investigation has commenced in the case.

I await both parties’ written submissions in advance of hearing to include.

A chronology of events

And

1 ES1 form/ notification of complaint to respondent.

2 Date of this complaint

3 HAP forms referred to in previous correspondence by the complainant.

4 Any correspondence surrounding the issue.

Both Parties will give their own evidence at hearing and will be permitted to cross examine witnesses.

If either party needs assistance in preparation for these papers and/ or hearing, please consult our website on guidance documents and preparation for hearings.

I note that the complainant has made reference to seeking an adjournment at hearing.

Adjournments on hearing days are based on exceptional circumstances alone.

Parties in a case are expected to prepare for and present their case at hearing.

 It is not essential to have legal representation as many of our customers are not so represented.

Please consult Equal Status cases on our website.

I look forward to meeting both parties at hearing.

Yours sincerely,

Adjudicator.

Neither party responded to this correspondence.

On 17 August 2026 at 12.30pm, I opened the hearing at 12.30 pm. Neither Party was in attendance.

Neither party offered any reason for their absence.

I have waited 5 days post hearing, however, neither party has offered any reason for their respective nonappearances.

CA-00071495-001 Claim under Equal Status Act 2000

On 12 May 2025, the Complainant submitted a claim of Discrimination on Housing Assistance grounds against the respondent, Humphrey Lynch.

In the narrative of his compliant, he stated that he had been discriminated on housing assistance grounds in securing accommodation. He added that he had been harassed and subject of indirect discrimination.

He outlined that he had been refused HAP following his period of unemployment.

He alluded to parallel issues live before the Residential Tenancies Board, none of which appeared to come within my jurisdiction.

The Complainant did not engage with the WRC request for him to provide his notification of claim form ES1 or an equivalent.

He did not engage with my request for prehearing information.

The complainant did not make an appearance in his own case. He did not give evidence on his own behalf.

CA-00071495-001 Claim under Equal Status Act 2000

The Respondent has disputed the claim made.

The Respondent has not engaged with the WRC request for a written defence in the claim.

The Respondent has not made an appearance at hearing or given any reason for their nonappearance.

CA-00071495-001 Claim under Equal Status Act 2000

I have been requested to reach a decision in this complaint. I have commenced my investigation under section 25 of the Act.

I have not received the requested ES1 or its equivalent as provided for in Section 21 of the Act.

These are precursor obligatory documents on which I can base my investigation.

(Section 21 (2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) the date of notification is the date on which the notification is sent, unless it is shown that the notification was not received by the respondent.

(3) (a) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court] may—

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

 (b) In deciding whether to give a direction under paragraph (a)(ii) the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including—

(i) the extent to which the respondent is, or is likely to be, aware of the circumstances in which the prohibited conduct occurred, and

(ii) the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent’s ability to deal adequately with the complaint.

(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall not investigate a case unless the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, as the case may be, is satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.

I was disappointed to open the hearing without any participants. I was further disappointed when neither party offered a reason for this non-appearance.

I am satisfied that both parties were on proper notice of this case. The WRC Administrative Section went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the complainant fully understood that he was to participate at hearing on August 17, 2026, at 12.30 pm in Cork Office of the WRC.

I have concluded that both parties were “no shows “at hearing without excuse of explanation for that absence.

I find this to be unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The Complainant has failed to comply with the obligatory notification requirements, ES1.

In this case, Section 38 A places the initial burden of proof on the complainant. He has not appeared to give evidence in his own case.

He has not raised any evidential facts from which I can infer discrimination has occurred. Neither has he given evidence of indirection Discrimination.

Taking everything into consideration, I have decided to dismiss this case, as a case not pursued after the expiry of one year from the date of reference i.e. 12 May 2025, in accordance with Section 38 of the Act.

Dismissal of cases not pursued.

38.— (1) Where a case is referred to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission and, at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of the reference, it appears to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission that the complainant has not pursued, or has ceased to pursue, the reference, the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss the reference.

(2) As soon as practicable after dismissing a reference, the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission shall give notice in writing of that fact to the complainant and the respondent.

(3) Where a reference is dismissed under this section, no further proceedings may be taken in relation to that reference, but nothing in this section prevents a person from making a further reference in relation to the same matter (subject to any applicable time limit).

I dismiss this case.

CA-00071495-001 Claim under Equal Status Act 2000

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.

Dismissal of cases not pursued.

38.— (1) Where a case is referred to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission and, at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of the reference, it appears to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission] that the complainant has not pursued, or has ceased to pursue, the reference, the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission] may dismiss the reference.

(2) As soon as practicable after dismissing a reference, the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission shall give notice in writing of that fact to the complainant and the respondent.

(3) Where a reference is dismissed under this section, no further proceedings may be taken in relation to that reference, but nothing in this section prevents a person from making a further reference in relation to the same matter (subject to any applicable time limit).

Taking everything into consideration, I have decided to dismiss this case.

This claim was submitted on 12 May 2025. It was not accompanied by the requested obligatory ES1 or equivalent documentation.

The Complainant has not engaged in WRC requests for relevant documentation prehearing and did not attend the hearing in his own case, despite being advised by the WRC that any postponement request would have to be made in person.

The Complainant has abandoned his case.

I dismiss the case in accordance with Section 38(1) as over 15 months have passed since the complaint was received by the WRC and the Complainant has not pursued the case or given any reason for that omission.

The Respondent has not engaged in formulating a defence of by making an appearance at hearing .

I dismiss the case.

Dismissal of case not pursued , Section 38 of Equal Status Act 2000 .