MARY CAROLAN
THE EQUALITY Authority is facing a legal costs bill estimated at up to €500,000 following the Supreme Court's rejection of its claim that Portmarnock Golf Club, which excludes women from membership, is a "discriminating" club under the Equal Status Act.
By a majority three-two decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court upheld a 2005 High Court finding that the club is not a "discriminating" club on grounds it falls within exemption provisions in section 9 of the Act relating to clubs catering for the needs of persons of a particular gender. Section 9 permits single gender and certain other clubs if the "principal purpose" of those clubs is to "cater only for the needs of" the particular gender.
The sides had agreed Portmarnock, established in 1894 with 662 members and 625 associate members, is a discriminating club in the colloquial sense as its rules limit membership to "gentlemen".
The legal dispute was whether it is a discriminating club under the Act and that depended on the court's interpretation of the meanings of "principal purpose", "cater only" and "needs" in section 9.
The authority argued the principal purpose of the club was the playing of golf and there must be a logical connection between that activity and men before the exemption could be availed of. It argued there was no such connection while the club argued its principal purpose was to cater for the needs of its male members.
The authority initiated court proceedings against the club in 2003. In 2004, the District Court found Portmarnock's primary purpose was the playing of golf, not catering only for the needs of men, and it was therefore a discriminatory club, a finding exposing it to losing its drinks licence.
Issues concerning interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Equal Status Act were referred to the High Court via a "case stated". In 2005, the High Court overturned the finding of discrimination after holding the primary purpose of the club was to cater for the "needs" of "male golfers".
In the Supreme Court on November 3rd, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan and Ms Justice Fidelma Macken agreed with the High Court while Mrs Justice Susan Denham and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly disagreed.
That outcome meant the club's arguments concerning the constitutionality of provisions of the 2000 Act did not have to be addressed.
The matter was back before the Supreme Court yesterday to address the issue of costs.
Donal O'Donnell SC, for the club, argued it was entitled to its costs, including the costs of arguing the constitutional issue in the High Court. Counsel also noted the Attorney General was not seeking his costs in the case.
Mr O'Donnell also said the club, after it won in the High Court, had told the authority it would not seek its costs against the authority if the Supreme Court appeal was withdrawn.
Frank Callanan SC, for the authority, accepted it had a liability for costs but argued that liability should be limited to the issues set out in the "case stated".
After the five judges heard and considered the submissions made, Mrs Justice Denham, presiding, said the court had decided the golf club was entitled to its costs in the High and Supreme Court related to the "case stated".
The court's ruling is expected to lead to a reduction in the amount of the Portmarnock club's costs bill which the authority will have to pay.
Outside court, a spokesman for the authority said it had paid its full legal costs to date, some €170,000, but he did not know the figure for the club's legal costs.