The High Court refused Roberto Alamazani’s application for more time to appeal a Circuit Court order striking out his proceedings against the Citizens Information Centre. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 3 April 2019, concerned only the extension of time; it did not determine the underlying discrimination claim.
Alamazani had lodged a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission in November 2016 under the Equal Status Acts. He alleged that he was harassed or victimised while attending a Free Legal Aid Centre clinic at the Citizens Information Centre’s Rathmines premises in July 2016. The judgment noted that his complaint described two people working for FLAC as responsible, and that the Centre did not run or operate the clinics.
The WRC struck out the claim for want of prosecution. The Circuit Court also struck out an appeal. Its order was received by the Centre’s solicitor on 20 June 2018, and she sent a copy to Alamazani the following day. The solicitor produced a copy of the covering letter and an extract from her office’s post-out book. Alamazani said he had no record of receiving communication from the Centre in June. He visited its Rathmines office on 22 June and served a notice of appeal, but did not try to lodge it until his motion for an extension issued on 4 January 2019.
The court considered the principles in *Éire Continental Trading Co Ltd v Clonmel Foods Ltd* and *Brewer v Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland*. It accepted that Alamazani appeared to have formed a genuine intention to appeal within the relevant time. But it found he had not shown a mistake or comparable explanation for the delay, and had not established an arguable appeal ground. The judge said his account of the claim, taken at its strongest, showed that he was suing the wrong party.
Alamazani cited the distress caused by his father’s death in early August 2018. The court found this did not explain the full delay, noting that he had been working on the case in October. It also recorded the Centre’s solicitor’s evidence that the Centre had incurred costs preparing for and attending three hearings at which Alamazani did not appear, and that a further appeal would cause additional expense and prejudice.
The judge concluded that the court’s discretion could properly be exercised only to refuse the extension. He added that the defendant appeared to have been incorrectly named and ought apparently to be Dublin South Citizens Information Centre CLG. That issue fell away because the extension was refused; the court did not make an order correcting the defendant’s name.