The High Court has quashed Circuit Court orders that overturned a Workplace Relations Commission decision in a dispute over a family’s refusal of hotel accommodation, finding that excessive judicial intervention made the appeal hearing unfair.
In a judgment delivered on 9 September 2024, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell ordered that the appeal from the WRC be sent back to the Circuit Court for a fresh hearing before a different judge. The High Court did not decide whether the hotel discriminated against the applicants, and said it was unnecessary to address their other challenges to the Circuit Court decision.
The dispute arose in September 2018, when Bridget O’Reilly and her family needed emergency accommodation. Cork County Council had declared the family homeless. The judgment says the hotel, owned and operated by Atlantic Troy Limited, initially told a community welfare officer it had no availability. O’Reilly then booked accommodation online using a debit card.
When the family arrived with the officer and a cheque covering a three-day stay, the hotel refused accommodation because its stated policy required a credit card in the name of a guest. O’Reilly did not have one. Her solicitor offered to use her own credit card, but the hotel said the card had to belong to someone staying there.
The family complained to the WRC, alleging discrimination linked to receipt of Homeless Assistance Payment. Their complaints were later expanded to include Traveller-community discrimination. The WRC adjudication officer found the hotel had not rebutted the applicants’ prima facie case on either ground and ordered compensation and a revision of the credit-card policy. The hotel appealed.
The Circuit Court allowed the hotel’s appeal on 18 October 2022, vacated the WRC order and made no order as to costs. O’Reilly and another applicant, Dinny O’Neill, sought judicial review of that decision. The hotel argued that judicial review should not be available because a statutory appeal had also been pursued, and maintained that the Circuit Court hearing was fair.
The High Court accepted that a statutory appeal is ordinarily the default route, but concluded that the fairness complaints were suitable for judicial review. It found the Circuit Court judge’s interventions went well beyond clarifying issues or keeping the hearing on track. The judge conducted most of the questioning of O’Reilly and her partner, and all of the hotel managing director’s examination-in-chief, while repeatedly interrupting counsel.
The High Court also said the Circuit Court judge’s language about O’Reilly and use of the term “itinerant” were inappropriate and derogatory, but did not find that language alone established bias. The basis for quashing the orders was the overall unfairness caused by excessive intervention.
The High Court listed the case for 10 October 2024 to address final orders and costs. Its judgment gave a provisional view that O’Reilly should receive her costs, with costs also proposed for applicants in the other judicial review cases for their initial leave applications.