THE SUPREME Court is expected to rule in October on crucial legal issues in the Equality Authority’s appeal against a High Court ruling that Portmarnock Golf Club is not a “discriminating” club under the Equal Status Act.
The five-judge court reserved judgment in late March on preliminary issues in the authority’s appeal against a 2005 High Court decision that the club, while refusing to admit women as members, is not a “discriminating” club under the Act because it fell within exemption provisions in section 9 of the Act.
The preliminary hearing related to the interpretation of section 9.
When the case was mentioned yesterday, Ms Justice Susan Denham said the decision would be listed for October 30th although, she added, it may be given before that.
The Supreme Court is required to list cases after a specified period where judgment has not been given and the October listing indicates judgment will be delivered then, but does not exclude the possibility it may be given earlier.
Section 8 of the Equal Status Act states that a club shall be considered a discriminating club if it has any rule, policy or practice which discriminates against a member or an applicant for membership.
Section 8 also provides for the suspension of the registration of such a club, meaning it could not get a drink licence.
Section 9 provides a club “shall not be considered to be a discriminating club . . . if its principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of persons of a particular gender . . . [or] it refuses membership to other members”.
The sides agree Portmarnock, established in 1894 and now having 625 members and 625 associate members, is a discriminating club in the colloquial sense as its rules limits membership to “gentlemen”.
The legal dispute is whether it is a discriminating club under the Act and that depends on the court’s interpretation of the meanings of “principal purpose”, “cater only” and “needs” in section 9.
The authority argues that the club is a discriminatory club under the Act on grounds its “principal purpose” is to play golf, not to cater only for the “needs” of men.
The club contends its principal purpose was to cater only for the golfing needs of men.
The case arises from a 2004 District Court ruling, in proceedings by the authority, that Portmarnock was a “discriminatory” club not exempt under section 9 on the basis its “primary purpose” was to play golf and not to cater for the needs of male golfers.