The Court of Appeal has allowed Patrick Kelly’s appeal and set aside a High Court order that permanently stayed his pending Circuit Court proceedings and restricted him from bringing further proceedings or applications without prior consent.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2017, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make orders of that kind in the proceedings before it. The Court of Appeal also ruled that its own jurisdiction to hear Mr Kelly’s appeal was not excluded by section 39 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936.
The dispute began after Mr Kelly was not offered a place on a Master’s in Social Science course at University College Dublin (UCD) for the 2002–2004 academic period. He complained to the Equality Tribunal, alleging gender discrimination and raising concerns about the interview process. In 2006, the tribunal found he had not established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. He appealed that decision to the Circuit Court under the Equal Status Act 2000.
During that case, Mr Kelly sought discovery of documents from UCD. The Circuit Court refused the application in 2007, and his appeal against that refusal was heard by the High Court. That discovery appeal had been finally determined by 9 May 2012, the Court of Appeal said. The separate substantive appeal from the Equality Tribunal remained pending before the Circuit Court and had not been fully heard or decided.
UCD later applied in the concluded discovery appeal proceedings for orders permanently staying the Circuit Court case and preventing Mr Kelly from taking further steps or starting further proceedings. The High Court granted the orders on 29 January 2013.
The Court of Appeal held that the 2013 orders were not decisions on an appeal under Part IV of the 1936 Act. It said the High Court’s statutory role in a Circuit Court appeal was limited to determining that appeal and did not give it jurisdiction to decide UCD’s application, which was unrelated to the concluded discovery appeal. Earlier permission to bring the application could not confer jurisdiction.
The court did not decide the merits of Mr Kelly’s discrimination appeal or determine whether the High Court has an inherent power to prevent abuse of process while hearing a Circuit Court appeal. It said the underlying Circuit Court proceedings still required finalisation, initially by that court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and vacated the High Court order. It reserved costs and expenses in the High Court and Court of Appeal for a further hearing.