This case involved a claim that the complainant was discriminated against on the age ground. The Court had to deal with a preliminary issue which involved the fact that the legal arguments in this case had already been rejected by the Labour Court in related proceedings under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003.

The respondent submitted that the complainant should not be allowed to re-open these facts and legal arguments for the proceedings at hand. The complainant alleged that different issues of law arose in these proceedings and the doctrine of res judicata had no application in this case.

The Court noted that the complainant had been invited by the Labour Court to adjourn the proceedings under the 2003 Act until this matter had been disposed of as it could adversely impact his capacity to maintain these proceedings. Despite this, the complainant had insisted on proceeding with the complaint under the 2003 Act and proceeded with separate proceedings.

The Court noted that it would normally be slow to deprive an aggrieved person of their right to a full hearing, however they stressed that they must ensure that the process is not abused and respondents aren't faced with the cost and inconvenience of defending the same facts again. The Court also pointed out that lay litigants, like the complainant, would normally be afforded a considerable degree of flexibility due to their lack of familiarity with the law.

Nevertheless the complainant was very well qualified and demonstrated a high level of legal knowledge in his case. Therefore, on the balance of the evidence, he had a full understanding of the impact of his decision to proceed with the 2003 Act proceedings in isolation. Accordingly, the Court held that there were no special circumstances to enable the Court rehear the facts in a fresh set of proceedings as such would constitute an abuse of process.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/July/EDA1723.html