The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Ireland, setting aside a High Court order that gave the Equality Authority leave to appear as amicus curiae in a judicial review brought by Patrick and Bridget Doherty.
In a judgment delivered on 31 October 2006, Ms Justice Macken concluded that the Authority had no statutory power to take the role it proposed in the proceedings. The appeal concerned only the Authority’s proposed participation. The judgment did not decide the Dohertys’ underlying claims about accommodation or discrimination.
The Dohertys, described in the judgment as old age pensioners and members of the Travelling Community, sought declarations that the respondents had failed to provide them with a centrally heated, insulated and internally plumbed caravan, and that this breached housing, equality and other legal obligations. They also sought an injunction or mandatory order, damages, and relief concerning an alleged failure to transpose a European directive. Those claims remained contested; the Supreme Court appeal did not resolve them.
The High Court had granted the Authority leave to appear as an amicus. Its judge cited the Authority’s experience and expertise on issues within its statutory remit, including discrimination allegations involving accommodation for members of the Travelling Community. The High Court said the Authority’s participation would be at the trial judge’s direction.
On appeal, the Minister and Ireland argued that the Authority’s powers in court proceedings were limited by its governing legislation. The Authority accepted during the hearing that it intended to advance arguments supporting the Dohertys’ position.
Justice Macken examined the Authority’s statutory functions and powers, distinguishing its broad equality-related functions from the specific powers granted by legislation. She concluded that the Authority could assist or bring complaints within the statutory scheme and had specified roles in court proceedings connected with complaints and enforcement. But appearing as an amicus in the Dohertys’ separate judicial review was not reasonably incidental to those powers.
The judge reserved her final view on the broader principles for appointing an amicus to take a partisan role at trial, saying the issue should be addressed in a future case with full argument. The Supreme Court’s order was limited to allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order appointing the Authority. It made no determination of the substantive judicial review claims.