Judgment: 2025-11-26 · Court archive

High Court finds companies can bring discrimination claims under Equal Status Act

High Court · [2025] IEHC 651

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • XTX Markets Technologies Limited
  • Aviva Investors Liquidity Funds plc
  • Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan
  • Workplace Relations Commission
What

High Court finds companies can bring discrimination claims under Equal Status Act

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • Workplace Relations Commission
  • Circuit Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held on November 26 that a complainant under the Act may be either a legal or natural person. Her provisional view was that the earlier Circuit Court judgment should be set aside and XTX's complaint returned to the Workplace Relations Commission for a full hearing.

The High Court has ruled that companies are not automatically excluded from bringing discrimination complaints under the Equal Status Act 2000, in a decision arising from a dispute between XTX Markets Technologies Limited and Aviva Investors Liquidity Funds plc.

Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan held on November 26 that a complainant under the Act may be either a legal or natural person. Her provisional view was that the earlier Circuit Court judgment should be set aside and XTX's complaint returned to the Workplace Relations Commission for a full hearing.

The case arose after Aviva declined to provide investment services to XTX following concerns connected with sanctions legislation and the Russian nationality of XTX's founder, co-chief executive and ultimate beneficial owner. XTX alleges that the refusal amounted to unlawful discrimination. Aviva disputes that claim.

The merits of that allegation have never been decided. Both the WRC and, on appeal, the Circuit Court dismissed the case at a preliminary stage after finding that a company lacked standing to bring a complaint under the Equal Status Act.

The High Court disagreed with that interpretation. Ms Justice Phelan found that the Act does not expressly confine complainants to natural persons and that the general statutory definition of a “person” can include a corporate body.

She also placed particular emphasis on section 3(1)(b), which recognises discrimination arising from a person's association with another person. The judge held that a claimant does not necessarily have to possess the protected characteristic itself; what matters is whether it suffered less favourable treatment on a prohibited discriminatory ground.

The judgment therefore settles the preliminary standing issue, not whether Aviva discriminated against XTX. The court said the legislation's language, purpose and context support allowing legal persons to bring qualifying claims. Final orders remained to be settled, with the judge indicating that the case should be remitted to the WRC for a substantive hearing.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review