Danut Nae, a health advocacy officer for the Roma community, brought a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 to the WRC, alleging to have experienced discrimination as a member of the Roma community in a SuperValu store on Talbot Street in Dublin.

On the day of the scheduled hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of SuperValu. Mr Nae provided some evidence to the WRC’s adjudication officer and understood that a further hearing would be scheduled to take place.

Mr Nae felt that he was not accorded due respect on the day, and that questions he was asked by the adjudication officer were not appropriate.

After being twice informed by the WRC of an adjourned hearing date, Mr Nae was then told that a decision had been made in his case and that his complaint had not been upheld.

Mr Nae said this had come to a shock as he understood that the case had not finished and was adjourned to be heard in full, as per the correspondence he had received from the WRC. 

With legal assistance from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Mr Nae applied for a judicial review of the decision.

Leave for a judicial review was granted on 24 March 2025 and an agreement was then reached between the parties that the WRC decision would be quashed and the matter remitted back to the WRC for a fresh hearing before a different adjudication officer.

It was agreed that the fresh hearing would be in accordance with Mr Nae’s rights to natural and constitutional justice and fair procedures. An order in those agreed terms was made last month by Ms Justice Bolger in the High Court.

In a statement today, Liam Herrick, chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, said: “The Commission is delighted to have provided legal assistance to challenge this WRC decision, in what was a very distressing case for Mr Nae.

“Everyone is entitled to due process under the law and to be treated in a fair, respectful and reasonable manner.

“The settlement of this case is a welcome development, and it is hoped that there will be wider benefit so that others may not find themselves in similar circumstances, without certainty of fair procedures before an adjudicating tribunal.”