Bridget O’Reilly and Dinny O’Neill v Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel [2024] IEHC 541

A family were refused emergency hotel accommodation on the basis that the person who booked could not pay by credit card. The High Court overturned the Circuit Court's decision, which had reversed the Workplace Relations Commission's (WRC) finding of discrimination, because the High Court determined that the Circuit Court hearing was unfair due to excessive intervention by the Circuit Court Judge.

Interrelated cases:  

These findings relate to four separate complaints, relating to one incident. The Workplace Relations Commission’s decision was appealed to the Circuit Court, where the decision was reversed. The applicants in this case made an application for judicial review which the below summary concerns. 

The other cases are:   

Bridget O’Reilly v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020724   (Summary) 

Philip O'Neill v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020725 (Summary) 

A Minor v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020726 (Summary) 

A Minor v. Atlantic Troy Limited T/A Charleville Park Hotel ADJ-00020727 (Summary) 

Facts

The case revolves around the applicants' status as recipients of Homeless Assistance Payment (HAP) and members of the Traveller community. In September 2018, Cork County Council declared the applicants homeless under the Housing Act of 1988. Emergency accommodation for the family at the Charleville Park Hotel was refused due to the hotel's policy mandating a credit card be presented at check-in. 

The applicants subsequently filed complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), alleging discrimination as HAP recipients and members of the Traveller community. The Adjudicating Officer (AO) determined that the applicants had presented sufficient evidence to presume prohibited conduct and violation of equal treatment principles under Section 38A of the Equal Status Act of 2000 and the respondent did not successfully refute the prima facie case of discrimination. Consequently, the AO instructed the respondent to compensate the complainants and revise their credit card policy to align with the Equal Status Act of 2000. Dissatisfied with the AO's decision, the respondent appealed to the Circuit Court. 

The Circuit Court ultimately overturned the AO's order, vacated the order, and did not award costs. Following the Circuit Court's decision, the applicants initiated two separate legal actions. Firstly, they filed an appeal based on a point of law under Section 28(3) of the Equal Status Act of 2000. Secondly, they were granted leave to apply for judicial review. While leave for judicial review was granted for each family member, the court decided that only one adult case and one minor case would proceed to a hearing.

Issues

In the judicial review hearing summarised here, there were three issues (a) that alternative remedies were available to the applicants, (b) that there was an objective apprehension of bias in the Circuit Court and (b) that there was an excessive intervention in the hearing at the Circuit Court. 

(a) Alternative Remedies 

Following the Circuit Court decision, the applicants made both a statutory appeal and an application for judicial review. The respondent submitted that statutory appeal was appropriate and as such there was no need for judicial review. 

(b) Objective Apprehension of Bias 

The submission of the applicants that there was an objective apprehension of bias was due to the Circuit Court judge’s use of language. Specifically, his use of the term “itinerant” and repeat comments on the appearance of the applicants, with emphasis on how the applicants appeared “highly respectable”. The respondents submitted that the use of the derogatory term was “overstated” and in the context did not support a contention of bias. 

(c) Excessive Interventions 

The submission of the applicants was that the Circuit Court “acted contrary to fair procedures and natural justice” as the judge (i) prevented “the cross-examination of the respondent’s only witness”, (ii) gave “evidence on the acceptability of cheques as security” despite no such evidence from the respondent and (iii) intervened “well beyond the mere seeking of clarifications”. 

The respondent submitted that the onus was on the applicants to “establish a prima facie case of discrimination” and the trial judge was simple seeking clarity on whether that burden had been met. 

Reasoning 

(a) Alternative Remedies 

The High Court held that there were “very significant issues in relation to the fairness of the procedure” in the Circuit Court, and as such judicial review was appropriate as the issues went to “the integrity and basic fairness” of the proceedings. The High Court however also highlighted that the applicants should not have sought two remedies at once, but any prejudice had been “resolved by a partial costs order” issued in relation to the statutory appeal. 

(b) Objective Apprehension of Bias 

The High Court further held that while the language used was “inappropriate and derogatory” and should not have been used, that “viewed in the light of the hearing as a whole” it was not enough to establish an objective apprehension of bias. 

(c) Excessive Interventions 

The transcript of the Circuit Court hearing revealed that the judge “conducted the bulk of the questioning” with all the witnesses, asked leading questions (particularly of the respondent’s witness, the hotel manager), and continued to interrupt counsel during submissions. The High Court held that “the extent of the interventions by the learned Judge were such that it is impossible that the hearing was fair.” The interventions were “excessive and went far beyond the need to clarify points or keep the case on track.” 

The court held that even if the judge was only trying to expedite the appeal the “objective impression of the hearing is that it was unfair.” 

Conclusion

The High Court held that the decisions in each appeal from the WRC before the Circuit Court should be quashed and remitted to the Circuit Court to be dealt with by a different judge. Additionally, Ms O’Reilly was entitled to the costs of the judicial review proceedings, with the other applicants being awarded the costs “of and associated with the initial individual applications for leave to apply for judicial review.”