The Supreme Court has dismissed Heather Rosen’s appeal against the refusal of leave to bring judicial review proceedings over equality officer decisions concerning complaints against Clare County Council.
The proposed review sought to challenge orders that ended some complaints and awarded the council an estimated €7,400 in expenses. It also sought relief concerning the procedures used at hearings and the lack of legal assistance for complainants. The Court held that the debt could no longer be challenged through judicial review after a High Court judgment in the separate debt proceedings.
The disputed complaints were brought under the Equal Status Acts 2000–2004 by members of Traveller families who alleged discriminatory treatment in relation to accommodation. Rosen was not a complainant. She had acted as a lay advocate or representative for complainants in more than 1,000 cases.
An equality officer grouped complaints by family and used callovers. The officer adopted a policy of dismissing complaints when a family was absent. Rosen said some families missed callovers because of illness or other good reason, or arrived late. The officer considered Rosen’s conduct unacceptable and obstructive. In many dismissals in 2008, the officer also ordered her to pay estimated expenses. The Supreme Court was shown a list of 37 awards totalling €7,400.
Those expenses orders were not directly enforceable. After Rosen did not pay following a demand, the council obtained summary judgment from the County Registrar for €7,400 plus costs. Rosen’s appeal to the Circuit Court failed. Her subsequent High Court appeal also failed, with judgment for the council for €7,000 plus costs.
Rosen applied for leave to seek judicial review in 2011, challenging the equality officer’s orders. The High Court refused leave, finding that the application was outside the applicable time limit and that the delay was not adequately explained. The Supreme Court considered the appeal from that refusal.
The Supreme Court said the later High Court judgment in the debt proceedings was binding and provided the legal basis for recovery. A judicial review challenge to the original expenses orders could not undo that judgment; granting leave would therefore allow a collateral attack on a decision that had finally disposed of the debt issue. The Court said the sequence in which the related matters were heard did not change that conclusion.
As for relief concerning the termination of complaints, hearing procedures and legal aid, the Court held that Rosen lacked standing to seek it in her own name because she was not herself a complainant. It dismissed the appeal. The Court did not grant leave to commence judicial review or decide the underlying discrimination complaints.