The Supreme Court has dismissed Bisi Adigun’s appeal against a High Court ruling that upheld the Equality Tribunal’s decision it had no jurisdiction to hear his employment discrimination complaint against the Abbey Theatre.
In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2015, Mr Justice Charleton said the Tribunal was entitled to decide as a preliminary issue whether Mr Adigun was an employee. The Court found no error in the procedure used or in the conclusion that he had never been employed by the theatre and had no employment opportunity there to which he could apply.
Mr Adigun’s complaint, filed in May 2008, alleged race discrimination involving access to employment and the withholding of royalties. He said his company, Arambe Productions, had contracted with the Abbey Theatre over a new version of The Playboy of the Western World, and alleged the theatre withheld €20,860.50 in royalties and intended to deal directly with his co-writer because the co-writer was “white and Irish”. These were allegations in his complaint; the Supreme Court did not determine whether they were true.
The Abbey Theatre disputed that the matter involved employment. Its solicitors told the Tribunal that neither Mr Adigun nor his production company had been an employee, and described the dispute as commercial and contractual. The Court examined the 2007 agreement between Arambe Productions and the theatre, which described the company as licensor and the theatre as licensee. It said the agreement did not indicate an employment relationship or a prospect of employment. The Court made no finding about the disputed intellectual property rights in the play.
An Equality Officer held a preliminary hearing in September 2010 and ruled in November that Mr Adigun had never been an employee and that no employment was available to him. The Officer concluded the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the complaint, including the victimisation claim he had later asked to add. The High Court dismissed Mr Adigun’s judicial review challenge in July 2011.
On appeal, Mr Adigun argued, among other things, that the preliminary hearing was unfair, that the scheduled substantive hearing should have gone ahead, and that he had been denied a remedy. The Supreme Court said the legislation allowed preliminary issues about entitlement to bring proceedings to be decided before a full hearing. Once the Officer found there was no employment relationship or employment prospect, the Tribunal could not grant redress under the Acts.
The Court also noted that litigation between Mr Adigun and the Abbey Theatre had been settled, but said the settlement’s terms and whether it covered this complaint were not proved on appeal. It therefore addressed the appeal’s procedural issues. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The ruling did not decide the underlying commercial dispute or the truth of the discrimination allegations.