Supermarket cleared of discrimination in row over paying for groceries with 10c and 20c coins
A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had 'anything larger' when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins.
The children's father filed a complaint accusing the unidentified supermarket of a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing service to the children on December 22nd, 2023, because they were members of the Travelling Community.
The claim was ruled 'not well-founded' by the
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC)
in a decision published on Friday, which was anonymised because of the involvement of minors.
The tribunal heard that at about 1.30pm on the day of the incident, a cashier scanned €68 worth of shopping through a checkout for a girl and boy whose father was outside the premises in a car.
READ MORE
The cashier's evidence was that she counted out €26.80 comprising €1 and €2 coins and 20c and 10c pieces. '[It] took some time to count,' she told the WRC at a remote hearing last month.
When she asked the children for the rest of the sum due, the young girl produced a purse with 'a large amount of 10- and 20-cent coins inside', she told the WRC.
The cashier then asked the children whether they had 'anything larger to pay with'. She explained that there was 'a large queue building up' at her till.
The children said they did not and left to fetch their father, the cashier said. She said he asked her why she was not taking their money, and that she found him 'very confrontational'.
She told the WRC she 'made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money' and had only asked for notes because it was 'a very busy day'. There were 'a lot more than 50 coins involved'.
The supermarket owner came to the till and intervened, the tribunal heard. The owner gave evidence that the father showed her he had banknotes, but told her he 'wished to pay in full using coins'.
The owner then proposed that the father could count out the exact amount owed in coins, or count it out in batches of €5-€10, she said.
The father replied: 'You are refusing to accept our payment.'
She said she was 'trying to find a solution' and even offered coin bags to count out the loose change, but the father 'turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation'.
The father gave evidence that the children told him at the car that they 'were not being served' and that he went in to find out why. He told the WRC he 'supported what [his wife] had said about the event' in presenting the claim.
The family's position, as presented by the children's mother at last month's hearing, was that the children were 'refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community'.
'The children suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present, and suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident.'
The supermarket's solicitors, Sweeney McGann, submitted that the business offered an apology to the children's mother for the 'misunderstanding' in a bid to de-escalate the situation, as well as a voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was refused.
Adjudicator Peter O'Brien wrote in a decision published on Friday that it was 'not prejudicial' for the cashier to ask the children if they had 'larger-value coins or notes to complete their purchases'.
He noted that by law, 'no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister [for Finance] shall be obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction'.
He noted that the only person who had given direct evidence to him about the initial incident was the cashier, as anything the children had told their parents was 'hearsay'.
The cashier's evidence was that she 'never refused to complete the purchase' but simply asked the children whether there was 'a more convenient way to pay', he wrote.
'The request to pay with larger-value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the Travelling Community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day,' he wrote.
He concluded the cashier's actions were reasonable and that she 'did not engage in discriminatory or prohibited conduct', and dismissed the complaint.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Is it worth my while to give half my inheritance to my husband to avoid tax?
I just want to confirm my understanding of the position around deed of variation/family arrangement with wills in Ireland. I am due to inherit €30,000 from my brother-in-law and I am wondering if it is worth my while to gift my husband half, in order to avoid tax ? Ms C.L. When someone draws up a will, they generally have two things in mind. First, they want to take care of those closest and dearest to them; second, they want to minimise how much of their estate gets taken in tax. READ MORE There's an industry of lawyers and tax advisers making a very good living servicing this demand – as evidenced by last week's article about wealthy individuals in Ireland buying farmland to avail of an inheritance tax loophole while it lasts. This can be a game of cat and mouse. New reliefs are introduced, advisers notice they can be used entirely legitimately but not in the way the Government originally intended to benefit their (generally) wealthy clients and, over time, amendments are brought in to try to restore the measure to its original purpose. But what you are talking about is a much longer established structure called a deed of variation, otherwise known as a deed of family arrangement. Anyone who has been in the UK might be more familiar with it as, in that jurisdiction, it can be a very useful way of effectively rewriting someone's will – at least in relation to any inheritance you are in line to receive – to take account of changed circumstances, such as the arrival of children, grandchildren or in-laws since the will was originally drafted. It can also be used in intestacy where the absence of a will might mean, for instance, that a cohabiting partner could otherwise be left with nothing. [ Wills and spouses: Why you cannot just cut a wife out of your will Opens in new window ] In the UK, such a deed of variation must be in writing and must be signed within two years of the original benefactor dying. One of the advantages is that rather than being seen as you inheriting and then passing some of that benefit onwards, the benefit you allocate to anyone else under such a deed is considered as coming to them directly from the person who has died. So what does that mean for you? Well, while there is a lot of similarity between the law here and in the UK due to our shared heritage, there are some significant differences too, not least in relation to inheritance. For instance, while, in the UK, the tax liability is on the estate of the dead person, in Ireland, the liability rests with the individual beneficiaries depending on the amount involved and the beneficiary's relationship with the dead person. In-laws are considered as 'strangers' in terms of inheritance. As such, they come under the lowest category C tax-free threshold And there is a key difference of approach also when it comes to deeds of variation. While there is nothing stopping you exercising a deed of variation to gift your husband half of what you are inheriting from your brother-in-law, it will have no impact on your tax liability. In Ireland, as Revenue has confirmed for me, as far as liability for Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT or inheritance tax) is concerned, you will be considered to have taken the full €30,000 inheritance from your brother-in-law with your husband being seen as taking a subsequent €15,000 gift from you. Now, in practical terms, that raises no tax bill for your husband as gifts and inheritances between spouses are exempt from inheritance. But it could have tax implications for the recipient of your largesse if you were looking to have a friend benefit, for instance. And it does mean you will face a tax bill. In-laws are considered as 'strangers' in terms of inheritance. As such, they come under the lowest category C tax-free threshold – currently €20,000. So you will face a 33 per cent tax bill on at least €10,000 of this inheritance – €3,300. It could be more if, as would not be unusual, you previously received an inheritance – or, indeed a gift of more than €3,000 in one year – from a friend, in-law, cousin or more distant relation. They all come under category C and that €20,000 tax-free limit is a lifetime one extending back to cover any inheritance or large gift received since December 5th, 1991. That leaves you with two choices: you can accept the inheritance and pay the tax due on anything over your tax-free threshold, or you can disclaim the inheritance. However, that second option is an all or nothing one. You cannot just disclaim €10,000 of the €30,000 so that you stay within your tax-free limit. You will be giving all of it up. Nor have you any right, if you disclaim, to influence where the inheritance goes. That will be determined by the wording of the will. The money would most likely go to other beneficiaries under a residuary clause – a clause governing the distribution of any assets not specifically allocated to any person or institution. The bottom line is that, if the intention is to reduce your tax bill, a deed of variation will not do it and, of course, you will have incurred legal costs in getting advice on and drawing up any such deed. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Value of sanctions against Irish landlords for breaches reaches highest rate ever, RTB figures show
The value of sanctions against Irish landlords for breaches of rental law has grown to its highest rate ever, according to new figures released by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). In 2024, it published 75 sanctions with a total value of €238,299. This is almost four times higher in monetary value than what it gathered in 2023, at €64,360. In July 2019, the RTB was given new powers to investigate and sanction landlords who engage in breaches of rental law, known as improper conducts. The significant increase in the value of sanctions issued against landlords last year came amid renewed focus within the RTB investigations unit on a smaller group of landlords seen to be repeatedly breaching rental laws. READ MORE In a statement to The Irish Times, the RTB said the work 'involved detailed investigations into complex company structures and rental arrangements that were designed to avoid detection and enforcement of rental law'. 'It involved prolonged investigative work to access properties, serve legal documents and to find tenants who were willing to speak with the RTB's authorised officers,' the spokeswoman said in response to questions. 'These investigations into deliberate and repeated offenders saw the RTB's independent decision makers award higher levels of sanctions than previously seen,' the board said. Among those sanctioned in 2024 was Marc Godart and his company Green Label Ltd, with eight different sanctions amounting to a total of €26,100 in penalties for various breaches, including failure to register a tenancy. [ Under the eye of landlord Marc Godart: how a tenant who objected to CCTV surveillance was evicted Opens in new window ] Another notable case from 2024 was that of Anuj Katyal, who received a sanction of €15,000 for a failure to comply with rent pressure zone (RPZ) requirements at an address in Liffey Valley Park, Lucan, Co Dublin. Landlords John and Patricia Keeling also received a sanction of €15,000 for a failure to comply with RPZ requirements at an address in Derham Park, Balbriggan, Co Dublin. The RTB has published 36 sanctions to date in 2025 with a total value of €102,490, including its highest value single sanction yet on a Dublin-based landlord. Sweet Home Accommodation Ltd, run by Renato Passos, was fined €22,000 for a breach of rental laws at six city centre properties under his control. Investigators established he had failed to register 20 tenancies in properties on Leeson Street, Middle Abbey Street and Upper Abbey Street. During the course of its investigation the RTB discovered Brazilian students were being targeted through language schools and on social media about properties Mr Passos did not actually own but was sub-letting. Investigators found there was extensive overcrowding at multiple properties run by him, with bunk beds crammed into makeshift apartments, mattresses laid on floors and livingrooms converted into bedrooms. In one property, there were 15 people sharing one kitchen. Former tenant Julia Langneck, who lived at a property sublet by Mr Passos on Bolton Street in Dublin 1, told The Irish Times 'it was not really human at all, it was really terrible'. She detailed sharing a room with four other people, all in bunk beds, and paying almost €400 a month in rent. When the house became infested with bedbugs and the landlord asked for tenants to pay to have them removed, Julia decided to move out. However, Mr Passos withheld her deposit. This led to her taking a case against him with the RTB, which ordered him to pay the deposit and damages as part of its dispute resolutions process. The RTB subsequently began its own independent investigation into Mr Passos when media reports detailed serious overcrowding and unstable tenancies in properties he was leasing on Leeson Street. This investigation then led to the €22,000 sanction.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘I don't feel safe in the house': Woman secures interim barring order against sexually abusive husband
A woman who alleged she was raped 'on many occasions' while living with her former partner in rented accommodation has been granted an emergency barring order by the Dublin District Family Court . The woman told the court on Friday that she has suffered sexual and physical abuse from the man 'for years'. She said the man has more recently begun to force her to give him oral sex, with the latest such alleged crime occurring 10 days ago. The man has also been physically and verbally abusive to their pre-teenage children since they were small, she told Judge Gerard Furlong as she made an ex parte – only one side represented – application for the temporary order. READ MORE Temporary orders cover eight working days. A new hearing, which the man has to be served notice of, must take place before an extended order can be granted. The woman said she rented the accommodation where the man, whom she had separated from last year, still lives. She was the main earner and the man had 'lived off me for years', the woman said. When at work, she has to leave the children with their father, though generally she tries to keep them away from him as much as possible. The man, she said, 'screams at me all the time,' says she is 'having sex with lots of men', threatens to kill her and threatens to kill himself. He has recently received a few thousand euro in social welfare back payments, the woman said, and since then is 'constantly drunk'. Last week, she said, he ordered a takeaway meal and became angry when the children said they did not want any. [ Man who threatened to 'slit throat' of TD's wife spared jail after citing psychotic episode Opens in new window ] The man started 'screaming in Polish in front of the children' and 'we were all terrified'. But the next morning, she said, he acted 'as if nothing had happened'. The woman contacted the Garda and engaged with its Domestic Violence Unit. She said she was 'very fearful' about making the application as she felt the man would now have 'nothing to lose'. Judge Furlong said he was granting the order 'without hesitation'. In another ex parte case, a married woman told the judge about repeated alleged sexual abuse from her husband and the father of their four children. 'I don't know if that is valid for a couple, but I know it is too much for me,' the woman said. 'I was always hoping for a good relationship.' In recent days he had come up behind her when she was doing the cleaning and forced his hands into her underwear despite her objections. [ Teens accused of 'savagely' beating man (60s) in south Dublin burglary freed due to lack of detention spaces Opens in new window ] He was also exposing himself to her in the house, which makes her feel 'disgusted' and anxious about her adult daughter being present. He is 'doing it over and over again', she said. 'I don't feel safe in the house.' Three or four years ago, she said, she was in bed with their youngest child when the man got in beside her and, despite her objection, 'did what he wanted'. 'I don't know if this is valid,' she added. The couples' four children live with them in the house. She said she feels 'awful' after being sexually abused and is exhausted, disgusted, humiliated and scared. 'I want peace and dignity and to be free from abuse,' the woman told Judge Furlong. The Garda, she said, was now investigating her complaint and had taken away items of clothing for examination. After the judge explained that the Garda would be notified of the interim barring order, and would remove the husband from the home, the woman said she wanted to ask a question. 'What will I say to the children when they ask where their father is?' Judge Furlong said it was not really a question he could answer. She knew the truth as to what had happened and knew her children best. Perhaps, he suggested, she could discuss it with a friend. In another case, a woman made a successful ex parte application for a temporary barring order against her sons, one in his early 40s, the other in his early 30s, both of whom have serious drug problems and live in homeless accommodation. The woman said she lived in a senior citizens' community and had been warned by Dublin City Council there was a 'high risk' she would be made to leave unless she got the barring orders. [ Man stabbed partner in face and chest in child's bedroom, court hears Opens in new window ] The two men had recently called to her home with a woman she did not know, had been drinking and were abusive to her when she asked them to leave. When they were taken away by the Garda, one of them later returned and smashed her windows and damaged the toilet. 'I was scared all that night,' she told Judge Furlong. The two men ask her for money and shout at her, and one of them had once broken her arm. However, she said she still lets them in because she feels sorry for them. The woman told the judge she has health issues, suffers from depression and was on a lot of medication. 'Everything that is happening with the boys is making my health much worse,' the woman said.
