The complainant in this case lodged a complaint with the Equality Tribunal in respect of arrangements he had with the Abbey Theatre. Based on submissions it appears the Equality Officer decided to hold a preliminary hearing as to whether the complainant had been, in fact, an employee as required by the Employment Equality Acts.

At the preliminary hearing arrangements were made for the date of the substantive hearing. However, the Equality Officer decided that the complainant was not an employee for the purposes of the Acts and issued a Decision on that basis which disposed of the case and removed the requirement to hold a substantive hearing.

The complainant pursued a Judicial Review of the Tribunal rather than an appeal to the Labour Court.

1.1  The Court first addressed the argument that the conclusion he was not an employee was unreasonable and irrational and the fact that the documents relating to the contract between Mr. Adigun and the Abbey Theatre related to Mr. Adigun’s limited company and not himself. The Court concluded that none of the issues considered indicate any possible basis that the Equality Officer’s ruling was incorrect.

1.2  In looking at the holding of a preliminary hearing, the Court considered section 79(3A) which provides for such situations. It goes on to find “Even apart from the subsection quoted above, it is within the scope of fair procedures before any judicial or quasi-judicial body for an issue to be isolated and tried in advance of the main hearing provided that can be done fairly.” The court found there was nothing to support an assertion that the Equality Officer misconstrued the relevant legislation or exercised his discretion in any unreasonable of capricious manner.

1.3  In looking at the cancelation of the substantive hearing the Court quoted Shakespeare’s Hamlet bemoaning lack of progress in litigation. The Court refers to a misunderstanding of JR proceedings and states “There is a range of appreciation in respect of the conduct of quasi-judicial bodies which should be respected. Clear statutory authority for the Equality Officer’s actions existed. In addition, reasonable decisions as to how a case should proceed are not to be substituted, even by a contrary reasonable view.”

Once the decision was made that the complainant was not an employee then no ruling could be made of benefit to the plaintiff. Indeed, “had the Equality Tribunal proceeded to a hearing the substance of the case having ruled that Bisi Adigun had never been employed by the Abbey Theatre it would have been in clear breach of its statutory remit. Plainly, there was no jurisdiction.”

1.4  On addressing the argument that no other remedy existed for Mr. Adigun, the Court considered the existence of contract remedies and Mr Adigun’s choice to pursue a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts. However, it found he had not demonstrated that he was left unable to find a remedy.

1.5  The Court considered that there may be a misunderstanding of the nature of JR which was chosen by Mr. Adigun in preference to a full appeal to the Labour Court. The Court stated, “An applicant choosing this remedy [JR] over on appeal cannot reargue the facts but instead must show that the Tribunal has moved outside the boundaries of it’s jurisdiction. The Court found that the High Court ruling could not be faulted. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.