Appeal against golf club ruling opens

THE Supreme Court has been urged to rule that Portmarnock Golf Club is a discriminatory club on grounds its “principal purpose” is to play golf and not, as the club claims, to cater only for the needs of men.

“Golf is not a need that is peculiar to persons of the male gender,” Frank Callanan, counsel for the Equality Authority, argued yesterday.

He was making submissions before the five-judge court on preliminary issues in the appeal by the authority against a High Court decision of 2005 that Portmarnock is not a “discriminating” club because it fell within exemption provisions in Section 9 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

Prior to the full appeal, the court is hearing submissions on the interpretation of Section 9. The preliminary hearing opened yesterday and Ms Justice Susan Denham, presiding, said it will resume on a date next month yet to be fixed.

All agree Portmarnock is a discriminating club in the colloquial sense in that its rules limit membership to “gentlemen”. The dispute is whether it is a discriminating club under the act.

In her decision on District Court proceedings brought by the Authority in early 2004, Judge Mary Collins ruled Portmarnock was a “discriminatory” club not exempt under Section 9 after finding its “primary purpose” was to play golf and not to cater for the needs of male golfers. In the full appeal, the Authority has filed 28 grounds. The club has cross-appealed the High Court’s rejection that sections 8 and 10 of the act amount to an unconstitutional interference with the right of free association with persons and to freely dissociate from others.

Donal O’Donnell, counsel for the club, argued its “principal purpose” is “to cater only for the needs of men” while its principal activity is golf. The use of the words “cater for” and its use in connection with “needs” meant the court should read “needs” not as felt needs or necessities for life, but social and recreational needs.