The High Court has dismissed Patrick Kelly’s claim for damages over the time taken by the Equality Tribunal to decide his discrimination complaint against University College Dublin (UCD). The court described the delay as undesirable but concluded it was not unreasonable.
Kelly brought the proceedings against the Director of the Equality Tribunal under section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. He argued that the delay breached his right under Article 6 of the European Convention to have his civil rights determined within a reasonable time. He sought €100,000.
Kelly had complained to the Tribunal in April 2002 that UCD discriminated against him on gender grounds when he was not initially offered a place on its social work postgraduate course. He had already accepted a place on what he described as an identical course at Trinity College Dublin (TCD). UCD later offered him a place from its waiting list, but he did not take it.
An Equality Officer issued a decision on the complaint on 2 November 2006, finding that Kelly had not established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. He appealed that decision to the Circuit Court. The High Court judgment records the appeal as ongoing and notes he was taking further legal advice.
In his High Court claim, Kelly attributed difficulties he said he experienced at TCD, harm to his good name, lost earnings and travel expenses to the delay. The Director’s representative accepted that the State’s Convention obligations under the 2003 Act applied from 31 December 2003, but argued damages could not be awarded for earlier events. The defence also relied on the case circumstances, including Kelly’s conduct and the importance of the original complaint.
The judge assessed the delay against factors including the complexity of the matter, the conduct of both sides and what was at stake. The court noted that Kelly received a UCD offer in August 2002, had not raised delay with the Tribunal between summer 2003 and March 2005, and that legal and staffing issues arose after he renewed his complaints about delay. The judgment says the Tribunal obtained senior counsel’s opinion on a legal issue and appointed an external Equality Officer after an internal officer stepped aside.
The judge concluded that the delay was not unreasonable. The court therefore did not need to decide the damages issue to dismiss the claim. The judge added that, even if damages had arisen for decision, Kelly had not established a causal connection between the delay and the losses he claimed. The court dismissed the claim.