The High Court refused Patrick Kelly’s application for the presiding judge to recuse himself and declined to interfere with an earlier decision that University College Dublin (UCD) did not have to disclose other applicants’ documents in unredacted form. It accepted Mr Kelly’s undertaking not to bring further interlocutory applications, but left open the possibility of a restraining order later.
In a judgment delivered on 9 May 2012, Mr Justice Hedigan considered three matters: the recusal application, how a European Court of Justice ruling applied to Mr Kelly’s case, and whether restrictions should be placed on further proceedings.
Mr Kelly argued that comments made by the judge about earlier applications and material he had posted online gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge rejected the application, concluding that the grounds did not support a reasonable fear that Mr Kelly would not receive a fair hearing.
The court then considered the European Court of Justice’s answers to questions referred in the dispute. The ruling did not establish a general entitlement for a vocational training applicant to obtain information about other candidates’ qualifications. It left the national court to assess whether refusing disclosure could undermine the effectiveness of EU equality protections, while taking confidentiality rules into account.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the EU ruling gave no reason to alter Mr Justice McKechnie’s earlier provisional decision that UCD was not required to disclose the documents in unredacted form. He concluded that the other applicants’ confidentiality rights outweighed Mr Kelly’s claim to unredacted disclosure, making that earlier decision final.
The underlying dispute concerned Mr Kelly’s allegation that he was denied a place on a UCD social work master’s course in 2002 because of gender discrimination. The judgment records that UCD later offered him a place, which he declined. The judge said the remaining dispute concerned Mr Kelly’s claim that he had been treated rudely at interview, which UCD denied. The Equality Tribunal had previously found that he had not established prima facie gender discrimination.
The judgment recounts a series of applications during the proceedings and the court’s concern that repeated applications had prolonged the case and used court time. Mr Kelly undertook not to bring further interlocutory applications in the Circuit or High Court against UCD, its present or former employees, or UCD’s solicitor. The undertaking preserved his stated right to appeal a point of law from the Circuit Court’s decision and to make applications concerning costs.
The judge accepted the undertaking with considerable reservation, rather than making a restraining order at that stage. He directed the parties to apply to the President of the Circuit Court for directions within seven days. The judgment said the restraining-order issue could be revisited on an application by the defendants or on the court’s own motion.