A case by the Equality Authority against Portmarnock Golf Club over the venue's men-only membership policy is be heard in the Dublin District Court in November.
The court yesterday turned down an application from the club for proceedings to be adjourned pending the outcome of a High Court case being taken by Portmarnock to establish whether it is a "discriminating club" under the terms of the Equal Status Act, 2000.
Judge Timothy Lucey said it seemed to him that if the club was happy everything was in order regarding its membership policy, and that it was acting within the Constitution, it should have "no reason to fear" the District Court proceedings.
Mr David Barniville, counsel for Portmarnock Golf Club, had argued for a six-month adjournment which would allow the parties to see what could be achieved in the High Court.
Describing as "somewhat surprising" the Equality Authority's action, Mr Barniville said it had written to the club in July 2001 expressing its belief that Portmarnock was in breach of the Act.
The club replied in September 2001, laying out its position, but did not receive a reply until November 29th last, "coincidentally" three days after it was announced that the club would be hosting the Nissan Irish Open, which starts today.
Mr Barniville suggested there was a connection between the 14-month delay and the publicity surrounding the announcement, adding he found it difficult to see the urgency in the case given how the Equality Authority had acted.
Asked to reply to this "allegation of an agenda", Mr Frank Callanan SC, for the Equality Authority, said it had indicated for some time its intention to initiate proceedings.
He said it seemed that Portmarnock had decided to embark on its High Court action after being alerted by the authority's case.
Mr Callanan added that there was every possibility that the High Court or Supreme Court would decide in 18 months or two years' time that the matter should be decided in the first instance by the District Court.
However Mr Barniville claimed it was "wholly impractical" for the District Court to determine the matter when its decision would be suspended pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings.
He said the case, the first of its type to be tried under the Act, would require a number of witnesses and significant legal argument, and was likely to run for two days. As for the constitutionality issue, this clearly could not be dealt with by the District Court.
He added if the club lost its High Court case the task of the District Court would be easier. All it would have to do would be to decide on sanctions.
Both parties had filed their separate actions on June 11th. Mr Barnvillie remarked that it was unclear as to whether one was 9 a.m. and the other 9.30 a.m. but "nothing much turns on that".
He added that the club had offered to expedite the High Court proceedings but this offer was rebuffed by the authority.
Under the District Court action, the authority is seeking a declaration that Portmarnock is discriminating contrary to Section 8 of the Act, which would see the club's alcohol licence suspended for 30 days.
Judge Lucey said there was no question but that the District Court would be quicker than the High Court in dealing with the matter. Portmarnock was free to seek an order of prohibition from the High Court to stop proceedings but in the absence of that "I think we should get the case going".
He said the case would begin on November 28th at Dublin District Court.
