Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liam  Hogan

Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC (amended on consent)

Representatives

Self-Represented

Eamon Marray SC instructed by Corrigan & Corrigan Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00060269-001

27/11/2023

The Complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) on 27 November 2023 under the Equal Status Act 2000–2018 (the “Act”), alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

The Complainant notified the Respondent of his complaint by way of an ES1 form on 18 September 2023 and that he had not received a reply to the ES2 form.

The Complainant submitted that he had been discriminated against on a number of grounds, namely gender, civil status, family status, disability, and housing assistance.

In addition, the Complainant claimed that the Respondent had failed to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability, contrary to the provisions of the Act.

 The Complainant identified the date of the first alleged incident of discrimination as 23 August 2018 and the most recent date of alleged discrimination as 10 November 2023.

The Complainant filed a very detailed Complaint Form on 27 November 2023. Further submissions and documentation were received on

·        10 October 2025 – email

·        25 November 2025 – medical report

·        1 December 2025 – email from Ms Immogen Schneidlebach-Jones

·        26 May 2026 – Submissions

·        8 June 2026 – email

It is further noted that there were several other emails received from the Complainant which were not considered where they related to complaints not before the WRC and therefore, have not been considered.

The Respondent was represented by Mr. Eamon Marray SC instructed by Audery Colleran of Corrigan & Corrigan Solicitors LLP. Witnesses appeared at the first and fourth hearing date but did not give evidence.

The name of the Respondent was amended at the outset of the hearing to Aviva Insurance Ireland DAC.

The Respondent filed submissions on the following dates:

·        7 October 2025 along with a witness summary

·        15 October 2025 – submission

·        19 November 2025 – witness statement

·        5 December 2025 – letter

·        18 February 2025 – letter

·        5 June 2025 – witness summary

The Complainant submitted that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender, civil status, family status, disability, and housing assistance. He also alleged a failure by the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of a disability, contrary to the Acts.

The Complainant identified 23 August 2018 as the date of the first alleged incident of discrimination and 10 November 2023 as the most recent date.

The Complainant stated that a fire occurred at his home on 23 August 2018, following which he contacted the Respondent. A second fire occurred on 24 August 2018. He submitted that he has since been residing in a property that was significantly damaged by these incidents and that the condition of the property has deteriorated over time. He further submitted that the Respondent did not issue a formal written denial of his claim, which he stated had an adverse impact on his health and wellbeing.

The Complainant gave evidence that he had informed the Respondent’s loss adjuster in 2018 of a disability and that this was not taken into account. He also stated that a medical report dated 12 January 2023 had been furnished to the Respondent by his representative.

In relation to the gender ground, the Complainant stated that he was treated less favorably than his former partner in the Respondent’s handling of the matter. He submitted that allegations were made against him in the Respondent’s documentation concerning responsibility for the fires.

In respect of civil status, the Complainant stated that he had provided relevant details and documentation to his representative in support of that aspect of his complaint.

The Complainant also gave evidence that he had been requested to provide documentation which he considered to be subject to the in camera rule of the family courts, and that he was not willing to furnish such material.

The Complainant stated that he understood that accommodation would be provided following the fires, clarifying that he understood this to refer to housing rather than reasonable accommodation within the meaning of the Acts. He further stated that he was in receipt of disability allowance, which he said was known to the Respondent.

In a written submission dated 26 May 2026, the Complainant submitted that the absence of a formal refusal letter resulted in him being unable to access certain disability related entitlements. He sought findings of discrimination on the grounds of disability, civil status, and family status, together with compensation. He also sought an order in relation to the application of the in camera rule to the Respondent’s request for documentation.

The Complainant relied upon on his submission of 26 May 2026 stated where the Respondent failed to provide a formal letter of refusal which resulted in him being denied disability entitlements.  wherein he sought a finding that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of disability, civil status and family status and maximum compensation for the “severe effects of discrimination, distress, data suppression and victimisation”. The Complainant also an order relating to the in camera rule and the Respondent’s request for documents.

The Respondent submitted that the complaint, received by the WRC on 27 November 2023, did not challenge or refute the factual accuracy or substance of its correspondence dated 10 November 2023. It stated that the Complainant had maintained that he was entitled to refuse to provide relevant and material information and documentation requested in the context of investigating two fires at his home on 23 and 24 August 2018.

The Respondent submitted that, under the terms of the insurance policy, it was contractually entitled to request such information in order to properly investigate the claim, and that the Complainant was under a corresponding contractual and statutory obligation to cooperate and provide the requested material. It relied on established principles of insurance law concerning the insured’s duty to cooperate in the investigation of a claim.

It was further submitted that the Respondent had fully engaged with the Complainant, who had failed to discharge his obligations and had instead obstructed the investigation by refusing to provide the necessary documentation.

The Respondent contended that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and should be dismissed under Section 22 of Act. It also submitted that the Complainant had failed to provide any objective evidence of a disability within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act. The assertion that the Complainant was a “disabled gentleman” had, it stated, only been raised for the first time in May 2022, almost four years after the incidents in question.

In support of its position, the Respondent relied on legal authorities concerning abuse of process and vexatious proceedings. It referred to Re Majory [1955] Ch 600, where Evershed MR addressed proceedings brought for an improper purpose. It also relied on Riordan v Ireland (No. 5) [2001] 4 IR 453, in which O’ Caoimh J approved the reasoning in Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1907) 37 DLR (4th) 685, identifying indicia of vexatious litigation, including:

 (a) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, leads to no possible good, or where no reasonable person could expect relief; and

(b) where proceedings are brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment or oppression of other parties.

The Respondent further cited Sean Quinn Group Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2001] IR 505 in support of the proposition that proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights constitute an abuse of process.

The Respondent maintained that, rather than cooperating with the investigation, the Complainant had made unfounded allegations and hindered the Respondent in reaching an informed decision on the claim, and that the complaint was without merit and constituted an abuse of process.

Procedural History and Directions

This complaint was heard over four separate hearing dates with several directions given and therefore it is necessary to set out a summary of the procedural history:-

8 October 2025

The hearing did not proceed on this date following an application for a postponement made on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent attended with witnesses. The Respondent made an application pursuant to Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (the “Act”) seeking dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it was frivolous and vexatious.

In the interests of fair procedures, directions were issued requiring the Respondent to file written submissions by 15 October 2025 and the Complainant to respond by 29 October 2025. Submissions were received from the Respondent within the prescribed timeframe. No submissions were received from the Complainant.

24 November 2025

The Complainant attended the hearing accompanied by Ms Schneidlebach-Jones. At the outset, Ms Schneidlebach-Jones made submissions and asked questions of the Complainant. During the course of the hearing, she announced without consultation with the Complainant that she was present in a supportive capacity rather than as a representative and requested that her contact details be removed from the WRC file.

The Respondent renewed its application under Section 22 of the Act. The Complainant objected on the basis that evidence had not yet been fully heard. No determination was made on the application at that stage, and the hearing proceeded to take evidence.

The Respondent cross-examined the Complainant. Clarification was also sought from the Complainant in accordance with the Adjudication Officer’s statutory duty to investigate under Section 25 of the Act. During the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that he was not in a position to give evidence or articulate his evidence due to a cognitive disability. The Respondent objected to this submission, noting that no medical evidence had been provided.

Following this, directions, based on the Court of Appeal’s Application for Adjournment on Meical Grounds Practice Direction, were issued requiring the Complainant. The Complainant was also directed to furnish a copy of a medical report dated 12 January 2023, which he had referenced during his evidence.

“DearMr Hogan,

I refer to the above complaint in which you are the named Complainant against the Respondent which was part heard this afternoon.

Medical Report

In the circumstances where it was your evidence that you were unable to articulate your complaint in evidence due to a cognitive disability, a direction has been made requiring you to submit a medical report dated between 24 November 2025 – 2 February 2026 addressing each of the following points :

1.      identify the medical professional and provide details by which they may be contacted.

2.       outline the medical professional’s familiarity with your medical condition and state whether they are treating you.

3.      identify your medical condition (s) based upon a proper examination.

4.      if the medical practitioner is of the opinion that you are medically unfit to give evidence before the Workplace Relations Commission in your case, the report should outline the features of that condition which prevent giving evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission.

5.      identify when you may be able to give evidence before the Workplace Relations Commission in the future, given his or her condition and the prognosis thereof.

6.      identify whether you will be medically fit to participate in a remote hearing or a face-to-face hearing.

7.      Is there any other reasonable accommodations the Workplace Relations Commission can offer you assistance with at the hearing.

It has been directed that this written report be submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission via email to submissions@workplacerelations.ie or alternatively by registered post to Workplace Relations Commission Lansdowne House, Lansdowne Road, Dublin 4, D04 A3A8. Please include the reference –ADJ-00049031.

The report must be received by the Workplace Relations Commission by close of business on Monday, 2 February 2026

The report will be shared with the Respondent’s legal representatives for the purpose of hearing this complaint.

Medical Report – 12 January 2023

In addition, please forward a copy of the medical report you referred to during your evidence dated 12 January 2023 from Dr. Kelly to the Workplace Relations Commission by email or registered post quoting ADJ-00049031. This should be submitted by close of business on Friday 28 November 2025.

Next Date

This complaint will be listed for case management on a date in late February 2026. You will be notified of the date in due course.

Yours sincerely,”

While the Complainant did submit the medical report dated 12 January 2023, no medical report was provided addressing the specific directions issued.

23–24 February 2026

The Complainant made a request to the WRC Access Officer seeking, among other matters, a recording of the hearing, a transcript, advance provision of questions, and permission for a representative to speak on his behalf.

At a case management hearing on 24 February 2026, it was confirmed that the Complainant had not provided a medical report in accordance with the earlier directions. The Complainant stated that he had encountered difficulty obtaining such a report. It was noted that a report from a general practitioner would have sufficed.

It was also noted that the Complainant had made a request for reasonable accommodation. In order to facilitate the Complainant, the substantive hearing was scheduled over two days to allow for appropriate breaks if required. The Respondent indicated that it had completed its cross-examination of the Complainant and would renew its application under Section 22.

For completeness the Complainant did provide the following which were not current nor did they address the specific questions relevant to the giving of evidence before the WRC in this complaint:

-        26 June 2018 – medical report from GP

-        12 January 2023 – medical report from Complainant’s GP.

-        17 February 2025 – jury summons from Courts Service

-        24 March 2025 – GP letter seeking to excuse Complainant from Jury Duty.

-        26 March 2025 – letter excusing the Complainant from Jury Duty.

9 June 2026

The WRC wrote to the Complainant on 9 June 2026 clarifying that hearings are not recorded, transcripts are not provided, and that while representation is permitted, a Complainant must give evidence directly.

10 June 2026

At the hearing on 10 June 2026, the Complainant attended unaccompanied and confirmed that he wished to proceed with all aspects of his complaint. The Respondent renewed its application to dismiss the complaint under section 22 of the Act, relying on its written submissions of 15 October 2025 and correspondence dated 10 November 2023.

The Complainant indicated that he did not understand the application. It was confirmed that he had been provided with the Respondent’s written submissions in October 2025 and had been afforded an opportunity to respond. The submissions were opened and explained during the hearing, and the Complainant was offered additional time to consider them, which he did not take.

In response, the Complainant maintained that his complaint was neither frivolous nor vexatious. He stated that the Respondent had been aware of his disability since 2018 and relied on his written submission dated 27 May 2026.

At the conclusion of the application, both parties confirmed that they had no further submissions.

Preliminary Matter

Section 22(1) of the Act provides that the WRC may dismiss a claim at any stage where it is of the opinion that the claim has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or relates to a trivial matter.

This complaint came before the WRC on four separate occasions. As set out in the procedural history above, the Complainant was afforded multiple opportunities to present his case. At the earlier stage of the proceedings, the Complainant was accompanied by an individual who initially acted as his representative. However, during the second hearing, that individual clarified that she was no longer acting in a representative capacity and did not attend subsequent hearings. The Complainant proceeded thereafter as a lay litigant.

The Complainant was afforded the opportunity to give evidence, was cross-examined by Counsel for the Respondent, and inquiries were made to allow him to clarify the nature of his complaint. Parties were given additional time where the Respondent made its application pursuant to Section 22 and the Complainant time to respond.

Having carefully considered the evidence presented and the submissions of the parties, I find that the complaint, as advanced, does not disclose a claim of discrimination within the meaning of the Acts. While the Complainant made extensive written and oral submissions and provided a detailed narrative, the substance of the complaint appeared to relate, at most, to matters arising from an insurance dispute. The precise legal basis of the complaint remains unclear but what is clear is it is not a discrimination complaint.

In considering the Respondent’s application under Section 22, I have had regard to relevant case law. In J O’N v S McD & Ors [2013] IEHC 135, Birmingham J. described proceedings as frivolous where they have no reasonable prospect of success, and vexatious where they impose an unjustified burden on a respondent required to defend such proceedings.

I also note the decision of O’Higgins J. in Nowak v Moorehall Disability Services (t/a Moorehall Living) [2025] IEHC 758, which emphasised that while some allowance may be made for a lay litigant, this cannot prejudice the procedural rights of the opposing party. This reflects the principle articulated in Hosford v Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IEHC 133, that fair procedures apply equally to all parties.

The Complainant, as a self-represented litigant, was afforded procedural accommodations. These included an adjournment at the first hearing date and an opportunity to respond to the Respondent’s written submissions dated 15 October 2025, which set out the basis of the Section 22 application. The Complainant did not provide a written response to those submissions, despite being given an opportunity to do so, and again declined to engage substantively with them when afforded additional time at hearing.

Directions were also issued to the Complainant to provide medical evidence where it was asserted that he was unable to give evidence due to a cognitive disability. These directions were given both orally and in writing. While a medical report dated 12 January 2023 was submitted, the Complainant did not provide the specific medical evidence requested addressing his capacity to participate in the proceedings.

The Complainant subsequently sought reasonable accommodations through the WRC Access Officer. These requests were addressed in writing.

Notwithstanding the opportunities afforded to him, the Complainant did not adduce evidence capable of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the grounds relied upon. His submissions focused, in significant part, on matters relating to documentation said to be subject to the in camera rule, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the WRC under the Equal Status Acts.

The Respondent relied on Riordan v Ireland (No. 5) [2001] 4 IR 453 and the approved reasoning in Re Lang Michener and Fabian (1907) 37 DLR (4th) 685, which identifies indicia of vexatious litigation, including where (a) it is clear that a claim cannot succeed or can lead to no useful outcome, and (b) proceedings are pursued for an improper purpose.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the complaint has no reasonable prospect of success and does not fall within the scope of the Acts. In these circumstances, requiring the Respondent to continue to defend the proceedings would impose an unjustified burden.

In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the WRC’s obligation to ensure fair procedures for both parties, including the Respondent’s entitlement to finality.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint is both frivolous and vexatious within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety.

 I find that the complaint is both frivolous  and vexatious within the meaning of Section 22 of the Act. The complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety.