The High Court has struck out Tomasz Pysz’s proceedings against Ireland and two government departments, ruling that his pleaded claims over his treatment as a former US Embassy employee disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the State.
In a decision delivered on 5 July 2022, Ms Justice Bolger granted the defendants’ application under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. She also said that, if that rule did not permit the order, the proceedings should be struck out under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Pysz’s plenary summons, issued in February 2019, alleged negligence, breach of duty, violations of civil liberties and international law, and complicity in “modern day slavery and human exploitation”. He said he had sought help from government departments after difficulties with his employment, and alleged that they ignored or neglected him. The judge took his pleaded case at its highest for the Order 19 application, accepting for that purpose his assertion that he had faced serious employment difficulties and sought assistance that departments declined to provide.
The judgment recounts that Pysz had brought claims under the Unfair Dismissals Act and Payment of Wages Act arising from his alleged dismissal and unpaid wages. A Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer found the US Embassy was covered by restrictive state immunity and that the officer lacked jurisdiction. Pysz said his appeal to the Labour Court was refused and that he had appealed that determination to the High Court, where he was awaiting a hearing date.
Justice Bolger said state immunity forms part of Irish law and may restrict employment protections for embassy employees, depending on their role. She held that those restrictions did not, by themselves, create a cause of action against the State. The employment relationship was between employee and employer, she said, and the appropriate route for Pysz’s employment claims was against his employer within the available statutory framework. She found that no exceptional basis for a claim against the State had been identified.
The judge refused Pysz’s request to introduce additional evidence at the hearing. She said the motion had been before the court on several occasions and he had not filed a replying affidavit with the evidence he wished to rely on.
The court’s order struck out the proceedings. The decision did not determine Pysz’s pending High Court appeal concerning the Labour Court determination. On costs, the judge gave an indicative view that the defendants were entitled to the costs of the motion and the proceedings. She listed the matter for 20 July 2022 for submissions on final orders and costs; the judgment does not state the final costs order.