The Workplace Relations Commission has refused to consider a complaint against an Irish investment fund by a UK stockbroking firm which has accused it of discrimination by refusing to let it buy in because its owner is from Russia.
The tribunal rejected jurisdiction in a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 by the British-registered XTX Markets Technologies Ltd against Aviva Investors Liquidity Funds plc, finding that XTX is barred from taking such a case as it is a corporate entity.
Lorna Lynch SC, appearing for XTX instructed by Ledwith Solicitors in the case, said in a legal submission that the fund’s managers had committed an act of discrimination by refusing to provide XTX with a service because of its “nationality, or imputed nationality” or that of its founder and beneficial owner.
The businessman, identified only as “Dr Gerko” by the WRC adjudicator in a decision just published – had obtained British citizenship in 2016 and given up his Russian citizenship in December 2022, Ms Lynch submitted.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
The key decisions now facing Donald Trump which will have a big impact on the Irish economy
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
“Neither Dr Gerko nor the XTX Group have assets or property in Russia...[neither] Dr Gerko nor any XTX Group entity is a designated person on any global sanctions regime, nor have any of them ever had a connection to or business interest in any designated persons,” Ms Lynch submitted.
Ms Lynch argued the UK-registered firm was entitled to bring a complaint under the Equal Status Act because the legislation included a “body corporate” in its definition of “person”.
Kate Egan BL, who was instructed by A&L Goodbody for the respondent in the matter, maintained that XTX had no legal standing under the Equal Status Act as a limited company.
She argued that the language of the Act “appears to contemplate a corporate entity as a possible perpetrator of discrimination only, and not a possible victim”.
On this point, Ms Lynch countered that the relevant European directive “specifically envisages” protection from racial discrimination for corporate entities and argued the WRC had a duty to apply it.
However, Ms Egan said precedent had been set repeatedly by the WRC and the Equality Tribunal taking the contrary position and called on adjudicator Valerie Murtagh to dismiss the complaint.
Deciding on the case, Ms Murtagh agreed with Aviva’s submissions and remarked that she was “satisfied that the complainant, a private limited company, does not have locus standi to take the present claim”.
“A company cannot be regarded as having a protected characteristic within the meaning of the acts,” she concluded.
