High Court asked to quash rejection of claims hotel discriminated against four Travellers

The High Court has been asked to overturn a lower court’s rejection of claims that four Travellers were discriminated against when a hotel owned by businessman Pat McDonagh refused to allow them to check-in.

Bridget O’Reilly, her partner Philip O’Neill and their two young children sought to book a room at the Charleville Park Hotel, Co Cork, on September 28th, 2018, after they became homeless due to their caravan being deemed unfit for habitation.

They claimed that, despite having booked three nights’ accommodation, they were denied access to the hotel, which is operated by Atlantic Troy Limited.

The family claimed the refusal constituted discriminatory treatment, contrary to equal status laws, because they were in receipt of the State-funded Housing Assistance Payment and because they are members of the Traveller community.

Is there an alternative to banning children from social media?

---

The Dry review: This Irish sitcom sparkles once you get past the alcoholism cliches

---

Newton Emerson: Northern Ireland is already a ‘sanctuary city’ in the UK – it could yet become one in Europe

---

Karlin Lillington: Eurovision saw a collision of vintage operating systems and trashy Europop

---

The hotel denied it discriminated against the family.

It claimed the family did not comply with its credit card policy which, it says, is required to secure a booking at the hotel. The family used a debit card to secure the booking.

The family’s complaints against the hotel were upheld by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which awarded them a total of €22,000.

The hotel appealed that decision to the Circuit Court, which last October allowed its appeal and set aside the WRC’s findings that the family had been discriminated against.

The Circuit Court found the hotel was entitled to rely on its policy of requiring anyone booking a room to have a credit card.

Members of the family, represented by Free Legal Aid Centres (FLAC) have brought four individual High Court cases aimed at setting aside the findings of Judge James O’Donoghue.

Judicial review

In judicial review proceedings against the hotel, it is claimed Judge O’Donoghue conducted himself during the hearing in a manner that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and predetermination of the appeal before it was heard.

It is alleged Judge O’Donoghue, who described the couple as being respectable people, also referred to them as “itinerants”, which they say is an offensive and derogatory term used to describe members of the Traveller community.

They also claim the judge praised the hotel’s only witness, the hotel itself, and business. This gave rise to an apprehension that what the court heard was unfair, it is claimed.

They also allege the Circuit Court’s order dismissing the WRC’s findings was unreasonable, irrational and made without jurisdiction. They want an order setting aside the Circuit Court’s findings.

These include a declaration that the Circuit Court decision was made in breach of the family members’ constitutional and European Court of Human Rights rights, of natural justice and of fair procedures.

The family’s actions were mentioned, while only they were represented in court, before Mr Justice Charles Meenan on Monday.

The judge expressed some concern about the way the allegations have been put and was not prepared to grant permission to the parties to bring their challenges at this stage.

He needed to see a transcript of the Circuit Court hearing before he could decide whether leave should be granted in the cases, he said.

The family’s barrister, Helen Callanan SC, told the court a transcript would be furnished to the court by her clients’ solicitors.

She said the respondent’s lawyers had opposed her clients’ application to the Circuit Court for a transcript of those proceedings.

In reply, Mr Justice Meenan directed that the family’s solicitor be provided with a transcript.

The cases were adjourned to a date in May.