The licensee of a Co Galway hotel has brought High Court proceedings aimed at preventing an equality officer and the Director of Equality Investigations reopening the hearing of complaints alleging discrimination against three members of the Travelling community.
The court proceedings have been taken by Mr John Sullivan snr, trading as Sullivan's, Royal Hotel, Gort.
Mr Justice Peart was told by Mr David Sutton, for Mr Sullivan, yesterday that an equality officer had proceeded last July 30th to hear the Travellers' case alleging discrimination by the hotel when there was no appearance for the complainants.
It was claimed on behalf of Mr Sullivan that, at the end of the hearing, the equality officer had stated she would deliver a decision. She also stated that, if the decision was against the hotel, it might be appealed to the Circuit Court.
No decision has yet been given. On February 28th, 2003, the equality officer stated that she had asked the Director of Equality investigations to reassign the case with a view to a new hearing before a new officer.
Mr Sutton secured leave to seek, in judicial review proceedings, an order preventing the reopening of the hearing into complaints against the hotel. He also wants an order directing the equality officer who heard the case last year to deliver her decision.
He will further pursue a declaration that the procedures adopted in relation to the reopening of the matters and the reassignment of the case to another equality officer are void and contrary to natural and constitutional justice.
The court was told Mr Sullivan and members of the hotel staff had attended the hearing in July 2002. Mr Sullivan had said he was forced to hire extra staff on that date and suffered considerable personal inconvenience.
No application was made to adjourn the hearing. On consulting the hotel's side, the equality officer proceeded to hear the case.
In a statement to the equality officer, a bar worker at the hotel said that on a date in July 2001 seven people were served meals in the hotel.
One member of the party asked for a pint of lager. As the bar worker was attempting to fill the pint, she noticed the barrel was empty and informed the customer it would take a few minutes to tap the barrel.
The bar worker had said the customer got agitated, saying they were refusing to serve him. She had asked him how could he say such a thing as she had already served his friend a drink. When eventually the barrel was tapped and they handed the man his pint of beer, he refused it, saying he did not want it now.
The staff were adamant that the man was not discriminated against and that the group had been served food and drink on the date.
It was submitted yesterday that Mr Sullivan has suffered a stroke and may not be able to give evidence at a new hearing even though he had given evidence at the first hearing.
His witnesses had left his employment and he might not be in a position to call any witnesses in relation to the matter, it was also stated.
Mr Sullivan contends he had fairly attended the first hearing and put himself in peril if the decision went against him. The matter was clearly determined and only awaited a final decision, it was claimed.