The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the State and affirmed a High Court order allowing the Equality Authority to act as amicus curiae in judicial review proceedings brought by Paddy and Bridget Doherty against South Dublin County Council and other respondents.
The case concerns the Authority’s legal power to seek permission to assist a court. The Supreme Court did not decide the underlying housing or discrimination claims, nor did it rule that the Authority must be allowed to participate in every case.
The Dohertys, a married couple in their seventies and members of the Travelling Community, live at an emergency halting site in Clondalkin, County Dublin. They allege South Dublin County Council failed to provide appropriate accommodation, described in the judgment as a centrally heated, insulated and internally plumbed caravan. They contend that the alleged failure amounts to discrimination and breaches housing, equality and other legal protections. Those claims were not determined in this appeal.
The Authority applied to the High Court to appear as amicus curiae, saying the proceedings raised issues within its equality remit and that it could assist with interpreting equality legislation and the EU Race Directive. The State opposed the application, arguing that the Authority, as a statutory body, had no general power to take that role.
The High Court granted the application in May 2006. It found the Authority had a bona fide interest and relevant expertise, while making clear that its participation would be directed by the trial judge and would be available to assist the court as required.
In the Supreme Court judgment delivered by Mr Justice Fennelly on 31 October 2006, the Court held that the Authority’s general functions under section 39 of the Equal Status Act 2000 included the power to apply to act as amicus in proceedings related to those functions. The Court rejected the State’s argument that specific statutory powers to participate in certain proceedings necessarily excluded that broader power.
The Court said the power was comparatively modest and should be exercised sparingly; such cases would be exceptional. The ruling establishes the Authority’s power to apply and, if the court grants leave, to act as amicus. It does not guarantee permission in future cases. Because the statutory interpretation issue resolved the appeal, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the same result followed from interpreting domestic law in light of the Race Directive.