Eight lead cases have been chosen by Belfast Crown Court for the first stage of actions by a group of 23 plaintiffs claiming discrimination against a bar in Belfast.
The group is suing the owners of Robinson’s Bar, with participants claiming they were unlawfully refused service because of their beliefs on gender.
Father Ted writer Graham Linehan is among those claiming discrimination in the case.
Lawyers representing the group believe their case has been strengthened by last month’s UK Supreme Court judgment that the term “sex” in the UK equality act, which deals with matters of discrimination, refers to biological sex.
Conclave: What time does it begin, how does it work and who is in running to be next pope?
Look inside: Graham Norton selling his homes in London and New York
‘It’s not the same place anymore’: Antisocial behaviour in a Dublin suburb
‘I was overheard saying my date wasn’t very good-looking. Now he’s blocking me’
The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission said the ruling would have “implications for many organisations” including workplaces, schools, service providers, associations and sporting bodies, including exclusion of trans men and women from single-sex toilets which match their gender identity, even if they have an official gender recognition certificate.
Speaking after the latest review, solicitor Simon Chambers said the group was now keen to press on to a full hearing, adding that “in light of the recent Supreme Court victory”, his clients’ exclusion from the bar should be shown as “the collective madness which prevailed at the time”.
The group is claiming direct discrimination due to their views on gender in the lawsuit mounted against Wine Inns Ltd over incidents at Robinson’s on April 16th, 2023.
Mr Linehan and other campaigners had just taken part in a Let Women Speak rally headed by activist Kellie-Jay Keen.
Following the demonstration, they were said to have spent up to 90 minutes in the city centre bar.
With some of them wearing clothing with logos in support of their views at the time, they contend that further service was then denied.
One of the campaigners is also seeking £20,000 in damages, alleging that he was assaulted and left permanently scarred.
Two others who say they witnessed what happened to him are claiming up to £8,000 compensation.
Separate cases are also being advanced on behalf of the other 20 members of the group. All of them allege that they were discriminated against and refused service because of their beliefs.
The eight lead cases have been proposed to represent the full spectrum of events, according to court papers.
Wine Inns strenuously denies any discrimination or less favourable treatment of the plaintiffs.
The alleged assault on one of the campaigners is also denied, amid counter-claims that his behaviour had created an apprehension among members of staff.
A further part of the defence involves assertions that even if there was any difference in treatment, it had nothing to do with the group’s political opinion.
