Today’s article looks at Ciaran Culkin v Sligo County Council, a case which highlights the importance of electing the correct forum in which to prosecute a Plaintiff’s claim and avoid duplication of proceedings.

Case Name And Reference: Ciaran Culkin –v- Sligo County Council [2015] IEHC 46, Judgment of Kearns P, 6th February 2015.

Court Or Tribunal: High Court

Jurisdiction/Subject Matter: Duplication of proceedings – Equality Tribunal complaint and Personal Injury proceedings.

Background

Mr Culkin worked as an engineer in Sligo County Council (“the Council”) for 39 years until he retired (and alleged constructive dismissal) in May 2009.

Mr Culkin started work with the Council in the role of apprentice technician in 1970 and continued his education earning a degree in Engineering in 2005. His role remained that of Senior Executive Technician at the date of his resignation from the Council.

During Mr Culkin’s employment, it is alleged that he was subjected to all sorts of negative behaviours at the hands of his employer including: failing to provide him with information regarding training courses, malicious rumours were spread about him, he was isolated and excluded socially, he was treated with hostility, and there was no respect for his opinions and views despite his experience. In addition, despite having obtained his degree in Engineering in 2005, he was deemed “not qualified” for promotion when he applied for engineering roles that became available.

History Of Proceedings

Two forms of proceedings were issued by Mr Culkin to prosecute his claim against the Council.

The first complaint was filed with the Equality Tribunal in September 2009 alleging discriminatory treatment in relation to “access to employment, promotion/re-grading, training, conditions of employment, discriminatory dismissal, victimisation and victimisatory dismissal.”

The second set of proceedings took the form of a High Court Personal Injury claim against the Council. The Summons issued in February 2011.

Mr Culkin’s Equality complaint was heard over four days between April 2012 and June 2013. At the commencement of the hearing, the Council contended that the complaint before the Equality Tribunal and the High Court were “the same” and that Mr Culkin “was precluded from pursuing both claims”. Mr Culkin elected to continue with the hearing before the Equality Tribunal. His complaint failed and is awaiting an appeal hearing date before the Labour Court.

This High Court decision results from Motion issued by the Council seeking to strike out Mr Culkin’s Personal Injury action on the grounds that it was an abuse of process and/or duplication of his equality complaint against the Council.

Determination

The President of the High Court dismissed Mr Culkin’s personal injury action. Kearns P agreed with submissions relied upon by the Council which can be broadly summarised as follows:

1. The Equality Tribunal complaint and Personal Injury proceedings resulted from “the very same alleged incidents of mistreatment”.
2. The Court is bound by the rule established in the Henderson –v- Henderson case (preventing the duplication of proceedings). Mr Culkin must elect to proceed with the Equality Tribunal complaint or the High Court proceedings, “but cannot pursue both”.
3. Coupled with the above, the President relied upon two sections of the Equality Act 1998 as amended, namely:

A. S77 (1)
“A person who claims to have been discriminated…may…seek redress by referring the case to the Director”

Despite submissions by the Plaintiff on how the Court should interpret the meaning of “case”, the President held that the term case must be taken to include underlying facts which give rise to the complaint. In this case, the President held that there was a “considerable degree of overlap” on the underlying facts.

B. S101
“Where an individual has referred a case to the Director under s77(1) and…the Director has begun an investigation…the individual shall not be entitled to recover damages at common law in respect of the case.”

The Court concluded its decision by indicating that “[Mr Culkin’s] right of appeal to the Labour Court remains, and his right to an effective remedy is therefore unaffected.” Mr Culkin’s appeal to the Labour Court remains pending.

Legal Review

This case highlights the importance of electing the correct forum in which to bring a claim on behalf of a Plaintiff and avoiding duplication of litigation and costs.

Practitioners should be careful to ensure that they advise their clients on the appropriate forum in which to issue proceedings, outlining the extent of the relief available to a Plaintiff client in a particular forum. This Plaintiff is now exposed to legal costs in relation to the same alleged incidents in the Equality Tribunal and the High Court.