A former Waterford Crystal worker is to appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal to permit him bring a more specific claim of fraud arising out of the operation of the company's pension scheme in the 1990s.

The proceedings by Mr Thomas Croke, a former glass-cutter who worked with the company from 1965 until he took voluntary redundancy in 1992, will have implications for some 211 other actions brought by former Crystal workers against the company and the Irish Pensions Trust.

In those proceedings, Mr Croke, of Herblain Park, Waterford, had alleged fraud in the operation of the pension scheme in the 1990s and had sought permission from the court to amend his proceedings so as to advance a more specific claim of fraud.

This week, Mr Justice Smyth refused leave to Mr Croke to amend. Mr Croke will appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

In earlier proceedings, on the application of the defendants, the same judge directed the trial of a preliminary issue as to whether the proceedings by Mr Croke are statute-barred. Mr Croke has also appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court and that appeal is expected to be heard in the next few months.

The complex litigation arises from events in the early 1990s after Mr Croke and hundreds of other workers accepted voluntary redundancy at Waterford Crystal. Mr Croke secured a £34,000 redundancy payment in 1992. He claims he became aware some years later of an alleged fraud in the conduct of the company's pension scheme and he and others took proceedings in 1994.

Proceedings taken by some 90 former employees were settled on a confidential basis in 2000. During the conduct of those proceedings, the workers had secured documents from the company which, they claimed, supported their claims of fraud.

Mr Croke had sought release from an undertaking, given in the 1999 settlement, not to use those documents in support of his action but the defendants are opposing that application. Mr Croke says he needs the documents to particularise his allegations of fraud. In another earlier decision, Mr Justice Smyth refused to permit Mr Croke to use the documents and that decision is also under appeal to the Supreme Court.

The judge said he was satisfied it would be unjust, in the circumstances, to allow the plaintiff plead another set of facts. He would refuse leave to amend.

He said he would award costs against Mr Croke and refused a stay on his costs order pending that appeal.