Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club and Others & Cuddy & Keane v Equality Authority and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Denham J.,Mr. Justice Hardiman,Mr. Justice Geoghegan,Mr Justice Fennelly |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IESC 73 |
| Date | 03 November 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. Nos. 296 and 312 |
and
and
and
[2009] IESC 73
Denham J.
Hardiman J.
Geoghegan J.
Fennelly J.
Macken J.
THE SUPREME COURT
EQUALITY
Discrimination
Discriminating club - Single gender membership - Principal purpose of club - Needs of members - Whether requirement that logical connection exist between principal purpose of club and needs of members - Whether admission of women to use club facilities meant club did not cater only for needs of men National Union of Railwaymen v. Sullivan [1947] I.R. 77 applied- Equal Status Act 2000 (No 8), ss 8 and 9 - Plaintiff's appeal dismissed (296 & 312/2005 - SC - 3/11/2009) [2009] IESC 73
Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club
WORDS AND PHRASES
"Principal purpose" - "Needs" - "Cater" - Whether language used in legislation ambiguous - Equal Status Act 2000 (No 8), ss 8 and 9 - (296 & 312/2005 - SC - 3/11/2009) [2009] IESC 73
Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club
Facts: The issue arose on appeal from the High Court as to whether Portmarnock Golf Club, a club permitting men only to be members, was entitled to rely on the exemption created by s. 9(1)(a) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in order to take it out of the category of "discriminating club" as outlined in s. 8 of the Act of 2000. S. 9 permitted clubs to be formed for specific groups of the community, including men, women, gay people and members of the traveling community. The concept of a "discriminating club" arose as well as the principal purpose of the club being to cater for the "needs" of its members and what those needs were. The issue of interpretation arose and the club relied on their constitutional right to freedom of association as protected by Article 40.6. Notably, whilst women could not be members of the club at issue pursuant to its rules, women were able to play golf at the club.
Held by the Supreme Court per Hardiman, Geoghegan JJ. (Macken J. concurring, Denham, Fennelly JJ. dissenting) that the nub of the dispute was the issue of "needs". The club said that it was a gentleman's golf club, a golf club for gentlemen. The ordinary natural and literal meaning of the word "needs" was that to be found in the dictionary. The extremely narrow interpretation of s. 9 as advanced by the Equality Authority was inconsistent with previous jurisprudence. It would take words of the plainest meaning to prohibit a club from engaging in any ordinary and legal activity which its members might enjoy. The legislature had seen fit to provide an exemption for clubs as to religious beliefs and those without religious beliefs. It would seem extraordinary if the members of such clubs could do nothing by way of expression of their shared views. The appeal would be dismissed and the judgment of the High Court affirmed as to s. 9(1(a). Per Geoghegan J.: the exemption became meaningless if the interpretation advanced by the Equality Authority was correct. A court could not apply a literal interpretation in a vacuum. Per Denham J. dissenting: that a literal interpretation was appropriate as to ss. 8 & 9 of the Act of 2000. The principal purpose of the golf club being golf entailed that it did not come within the scope of s. 9 of the Act of 2000. It was not thus a permitted exception to the rule against discrimination and thus was a discriminating club. The exceptions set out in s. 9 were limited. The club catered for both men and women and thus did not cater "only" for the "needs" of men. The appeal would be allowed and the finding of the District Court that the club was a discriminating club would be upheld. Per Fennelly J. dissenting: The club catered also to women and thus did not satisfy the exception requirements. The appeal would be allowed.
Reporter: E.F.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2
COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(7)(A)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S9(1)(A)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(3)
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6.1
CONSTITUTION ART 43
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S3
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(1)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(A)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(G)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(H)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(I)
EEC DIR 2004/113 RECITAL 1
EEC DIR 2004/113 RECITAL 16
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(2)(A)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(2)(B)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S3(2)
HOWARD & ORS v CMRS OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND 1994 1 IR 101
CRAIES & EDGAR CRAIES ON STATUTE LAW 7ED 65
B (D) v MIN FOR HEALTH & HEPATITUS C COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 2003 3 IR 12 2003/4/812
CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH 8ED 1990
TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S235
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S9(1)(A)(i)
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS & ORS v SISK & O MUIRI 1992 2 IR 171 1992 ILRM 96
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1998 S56
MEREDITH WANTED: SINGLE-SEX ZONES FOR OUR SANITY IRISH TIMES 4.3.2005
RHODE ASSOCIATION & ASSIMILATION 1986 81 NWULR 106
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S3(1)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S4(1)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S3(2)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(7)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S9(1)
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S3(2)(H)
CONSTITUTION ART 26
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY BILL 1996, IN RE 1997 2 IR 321 1998/18/6758
EQUAL STATUS BILL 1997, IN RE 1997 2 IR 387 1998/18/6878
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(F)
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6
NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN & ORS v SULLIVAN & ORS 1947 IR 77
BENNION STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 858-866
HALKI SHIPPING CORP v SOPEX OILS LTD (THE HALKI) 1998 2 AER 23 1998 1 WLR 726
MULLINS v JUDGE HARNETT & DPP 1998 4 IR 426 1998 2 ILRM 304 1998/26/10487
DPP (BRODERICK) v FLANAGAN 1979 IR 265 1980 114 ILTR 34
DODD STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN IRELAND 2008
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S5(2)(B)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 11
SIGURJONSSON v ICELAND 1993 16 EHRR 462
YOUNG & ORS v UNITED KINGDOM 1982 4 EHRR 38 1982 ECC 264
WILSON & ORS v UNITED KINGDOM 2002 35 EHRR 20
EEC DIR 2004/113 RECITAL 3
EEC DIR 2004/113 RECITAL 13
EEC DIR 2004/113 RECITAL 16
HOWARD & ORS v CMRS OF PUBLIC WORKS 1994 1 IR 101 1993 ILRM 665
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 S8(2)(B)(i)
REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRL) ACT 1904 S1
REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRL) ACT 1904 S2
REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRL) ACT 1904 S4(K)
INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1988 S42
EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000 SCHED
MCDAID v JUDGE SHEEHY & ORS 1991 1 IR 1
In the High Court two cases, which arise out of the same set of facts, were taken together. There were two principal issues: (i) the interpretation of sections of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and (ii) the constitutionality of the Equal Status Act, 2000.
This Court decided to proceed first on the issue of statutory interpretation, which is essentially the issue arising on the case stated from Mary Collins, Judge of the District Court. However, because the issues are somewhat interlinked, while the State is not a party to the case stated, the Court indicated that it would hear any submissions which the State wished to make on the interpretation of the Equal Status Act, 2000, referred to as "the Act of 2000".
The case stated arose pursuant to s.2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857, as extended by s.51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961. At sittings of the District Court, at Court 54, Richmond Hospital, North Brunswick Street, Dublin 7, on the 28 th November, 2003, and at Court 40, Dolphin House, Dublin 2, on the 19 th January, 2004, Portmarnock Golf Club, Daniel Lynch, Colin Harnett, T.M. Healy, Joseph Leyden, Joseph McAleece, W.P. Twamley and R.C. Cuddy, the defendants/respondents, and hereinafter referred to as "Portmarnock", appeared to answer a complaint by The Equality Authority, the plaintiff, and hereinafter referred to as "the Authority".
The complaint was made pursuant to s.8 of the Act of 2000. The Authority sought a determination of the court that Portmarnock is a discriminatory club for the purpose of s.8 of the Act of 2000, and for an order suspending the certificate of registration of the Club for a period not exceeding thirty days.
Evidence was given to the District Court on behalf of Portmarnock by the Secretary Manager of the Club and the Captain of the Club. Facts were proved, admitted or agreed, and held by the District Court, as follows.
Portmarnock, founded in 1894, is one of the oldest golf clubs in Ireland and is affiliated to the Golfing Union of Ireland, the body which regulates men's golf in Ireland.
Portmarnock has for many years been the holder of a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Act, 1904 to 1999, referred to herein as a "drinks licence", and during that time has not been the subject of complaint or prosecution by An Garda Síochána in respect of the provision of intoxicating liquor on its premises.
Evidence was given that there were 662 members and 625 associate members of Portmarnock, all of whom are men. Under its rules, since it was established in 1894, Portmarnock consists of members and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quigley and Others v Minister for Education and Others
...application was heard, the Supreme Court has given judgment on the appeal against the decision of O”Higgins J., which is reported at [2010] 1 ILRM 237. The Supreme Court determined the matter on the basis of the proper interpretation of the relevant sections of the Equal Status Act 2000 and......
-
MK (Albania) v Minister for Justice & Equality
...discussed freedom of association, as a pre-existing natural right inhering in humankind, in Equality Authority v. Portmarnock Golf Club [2010] I.R. 671, he was discussing the Article 40.6.1(iii) right in the context of freedom of speech, to organise for industrial purposes, take part in ele......
-
Fingleton v Central Bank of Ireland
...is or was’ concerned in the management and this is impermissible. Reliance was placed on Equality Authority v. Portmarnock Golf Club [2010] 1 I.R. 671 in that regard. 27 Third, a number of other provisions in the Act use present tense definitions which shows that the legislature intended th......
-
Mohan v Ireland
...such as Murphy v. Roche [1987] I.R. 106, McDaid v. Sheehy [1991] 1 I.R. 1, and Equality Authority v. Portmarnock Golf Club [2009] IESC 73, [2010] 1 I.R. 671, the High Court judge did not then proceed to address any further issues in the case, but rather dismissed the claim. The Court of......
-
Green jackets in men's sizes only: gender discrimination at private country clubs.
...*1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 12, 1998); State v. Burning Tree Club, Inc., 554 A.2d 366 (Md. 1989); Equal. Auth. v. Portmarnock Golf Club, [2009] I.E.S.C. 73 (Ir.), available at (6.) Equal. Auth., [2009] I.E.S.C. 73. (7.) R&A Defends All Male Policy, supra note 2. (8.) See Warfield, 896 P.2......