The Supreme Court has deferred to next month issues in an appeal by the Equality Authority against a High Court decision on Portmarnock Golf Club’s policy of refusing to admit women members.
The appeal was due for hearing before the five-judge Supreme Court today but could not proceed as one of the judges was ill.
In those circumstance, Ms Justice Susan Denham, presiding, said the court had to defer the appeal. On consent of the parties, she fixed December 18th next for a hearing in relation only to issues raised in the appeal related to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Equal Status Act.
In a High Court judgment delivered in 2005, Mr Justice Kevin O'Higgins declared the club was not a "discriminating" club under the terms of the Equal Status Act 2000 because, he found, it falls within an exception provided for in Section 9 of that Act.
The proceedings arose after the District Court suspended the Portmarnock club's drink licence in February 2004 for seven days after finding its rule excluding women was discriminatory.
District Court Judge Mary Colins held the principal purpose of the club was to play golf and not, as the club contended, to cater for the needs of male golfers.
The suspension was subsequently deferred pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings. The High Court upheld the club's argument that its primary purpose was to cater for the needs of male golfers and further ruled this did not undermine the aims of the 2000 Act.
Mr Justice O'Higgins said there was "nothing inherently undesirable with persons seeking, in a social context, the society of persons of the same gender or the same nationality or the same religion".
The Equality Authority has filed 28 grounds of appeal against the High Court decision. Among those grounds is that the High Court judge should have found the club's principal purpose was the playing of golf, not catering for the needs of male golfers.
Two trustees of the club have also appealed against the High Court's rejection of their arguments as to the constitutionality of provisions of the 2000 Act. They claim Sections 8 and 10 of the Act mount to an unconstitutional interference with the right of the plaintiffs and other members to freely associate together, including the right to freely dissociate from others.
