The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the Equality Authority and held that Portmarnock Golf Club was a discriminating club under the Equal Status Act 2000 because its rules excluded women from membership and the club did not qualify for a statutory exception.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2009, Denham J. said the club’s principal purpose was golf, rather than catering only for the needs of men. The Court found that women could play the course, use clubhouse facilities and take part in competitions as guests, although only men could become members or associate members.
The case reached the Supreme Court through a case stated from the District Court and a separate plenary action brought by two trustees of the club. The Authority had asked the District Court to determine whether the club was discriminatory and to suspend its drinks registration certificate. The District Court found on 20 February 2004 that the club was discriminatory, then ordered a seven-day suspension on 18 May 2004.
The High Court had interpreted section 9 of the Act as exempting the club, declaring it should not be considered a discriminating club. The Authority appealed that interpretation. The Supreme Court considered statutory interpretation first; the constitutional validity of the Act was not before it at this stage.
The Court said section 8 established a general prohibition on discrimination by clubs holding a drinks licence, including gender discrimination. Section 9 provided exceptions, including for a club whose principal purpose was to cater only for the needs of people of a particular gender.
Denham J. said the exception required examining the club’s actual principal purpose. The club’s rules identified golf as its central activity, and the evidence showed women were also catered for as golfers, though differently from men. The Court concluded the club did not cater only for men and there was no logical connection between golf as its principal purpose and the gender restriction on membership.
The ruling determined the statutory interpretation issue and upheld the District Court’s finding that the club was discriminatory. The judgment did not decide the constitutional challenge to the Act. It also did not itself impose a new suspension; the seven-day suspension had been ordered by the District Court in 2004.