The High Court has dismissed an appeal by Olumide Smith over a discrimination complaint arising from a proposed six-to-eight-week letting of a property in Cherrywood, Dublin 18.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 4 February 2020 that the appeal disclosed no error of law. Under section 28 of the Equal Status Act, the High Court’s role was limited to reviewing a point of law. It could not rehear the case or overturn the Circuit Court’s factual findings except in limited circumstances, such as where a finding lacked evidence or no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
Mr Smith had complained to the Workplace Relations Commission that Mark Copeland declined to let him the property because he intended to use a housing assistance payment and because of his race. The email exchange took place on 16 February 2017. Mr Copeland said he did not want the administrative burden of a social welfare scheme for a six-week lease. Mr Smith described his racial or ethnic origin as Yoruba.
The Commission dismissed the complaint, finding that Mr Smith had no real intention of renting the property and had not established a race claim. The Circuit Court reheard the matter and, on 5 July 2018, also found that he had no genuine intention of taking the short-term letting. The High Court noted that the Circuit Court’s decision rested on that factual finding, so it did not determine how the housing-assistance provisions applied to short-term lettings.
The High Court said the appeal was procedurally irregular because the notices of motion did not identify the point or points of law relied on. Although that defect could itself have justified dismissal, the judge considered the substance of the appeal because Mr Smith was representing himself.
The Circuit Court had heard evidence from both sides. The High Court said it was open to that court to consider the evidence about the proposed move from Balbriggan, the lack of evidence that housing assistance would be available for a six-to-eight-week letting, and the absence of a Dublin City Council witness. A letter confirming eligibility for housing assistance postdated the email exchange and did not address a short-term letting. The High Court found no basis to conclude that the Circuit Court’s findings were unsupported, unreasonable or based on an incorrect reading of documents.
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court did not decide the underlying discrimination allegations on their merits.