The Supreme Court has dismissed the Equality Authority’s appeal over whether Portmarnock Golf Club could be treated as a “discriminating club” under the Equal Status Act 2000. The Court held that the Act’s exemption for a club whose principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of people of a particular gender could apply to the club.
The dispute began with an Equality Authority application to the District Court under section 8(3) of the Act. It sought a determination that the club was a discriminating club and an order suspending its registration to sell alcohol under the Registration of Clubs Acts. On 20 February 2004, District Court Judge Mary Collins made the determination sought. The club appealed by way of Case Stated.
The High Court, hearing that appeal alongside separate proceedings brought by two club trustees, held that the club fell within the section 9(1)(a) exemption. It therefore found the District Court determination wrong. The trustees’ separate proceedings also challenged the constitutionality of sections 8, 9 and 10 and sought declarations and damages. The High Court expressed a view that the provisions were constitutional, although the Supreme Court judgment said the status of that part of the High Court decision was unclear and did not address it.
In the Supreme Court, Justice Hugh Geoghegan considered only the statutory interpretation issue. He said section 9 had to be read with section 8 and that “needs” could include social or cultural requirements, rather than only objectively essential requirements. He accepted the club’s interpretation that the phrase about a club’s principal purpose concerns the people whose needs it caters for, not simply the activity the club offers.
The judgment noted that women could play golf at Portmarnock by paying a green fee and use its bar facilities. It described those services to non-members as neutral to the issue before the Court. It also noted that race and colour were omitted from the grounds covered by the section 9 exemption.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Equality Authority’s appeal. This resolved the statutory interpretation appeal in the club’s favour. The judgment did not decide the constitutional challenge or make a finding on it.