The High Court has struck out most of an electrician’s claims against the Commission for Regulation of Utilities (CRU), finding that several requests for relief should have been brought through judicial review and were substantially out of time. Data protection claims, including a claim for compensation for non-material damage, remain for trial.
The case concerns an electrical contractor’s allegation that his former employer used his Qualified Certifier Number (QCN) on certificates for installations he had not inspected or certified. He raised the issue with the Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland (RECI), which operated as Safe Electric and had been appointed by the CRU as the Electricity Safety Supervisory Body. The contractor later settled separate proceedings against his former employer.
In the proceedings against the CRU, the contractor sought declarations about the certification system, orders requiring inspections and disclosure, and damages under several legal headings. The CRU applied to strike out all or parts of the case. The contractor’s counsel clarified that he was not claiming material loss, and the parties agreed to replace references to upset, distress, worry and anxiety with “concern” and “concerned”.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell held that claims challenging the legality of the CRU’s regulatory arrangements, and seeking to compel it to direct RECI to inspect records, were in substance public law claims. They could have been pursued by judicial review, but the proceedings began well beyond the usual three-month time limit. No application to extend that limit was made, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was given. The judge struck out those claims as an abuse of process and as having no reasonable chance of succeeding.
The judge also struck out damages claims for negligence, breach of warranty, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance in public office, legitimate expectation, and alleged breaches of constitutional and European Convention rights. He found that the pleadings did not establish the required loss or damage for several tort claims, did not plead a contract or warranty, and did not identify the rights or representations relied on for others.
The data protection claims were not struck out. The judge said the CRU’s assertion that all relevant data had been provided raised factual issues better suited to trial. He also said non-material damage could potentially support compensation if the contractor succeeds. The pleadings must, however, remove references to sections 90, 91 and 92 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which concern law-enforcement processing and do not apply to this case.
The court directed the contractor to file an amended statement of claim reflecting the struck-out reliefs. It observed that a lower court also had jurisdiction over the reduced case, but made no transfer order because no application was before it. The judge set out a provisional view on costs and listed the matter for final orders on 12 November 2024.