A lesbian couple are to appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that they do not have the right to marry here under the Constitution.
Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan said yesterday they intended to appeal against the findings of Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne in their case. Dr Gilligan said they believed clarification by the Supreme Court of the issues raised in their action was not only in their own interest but also in the public interest.
Ms Justice Dunne ruled last week that marriage is understood under the 1937 Constitution to be confined to persons of the opposite sex. She also rejected claims by Dr Zappone and Dr Gilligan that the refusal to permit them marry here breaches their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant and member of the Human Rights Commission, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, had brought their action against the Revenue Commissioners and the State.
The matter came before Ms Justice Dunne again yesterday in relation to the issue of costs. At the outset, Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State parties, said his side were not seeking their costs against the couple but rejected arguments that the State should pay the couple's costs. The court had found that, in relation to the understanding of marriage, the Constitution means what "virtually everyone" understood it to mean, he said.
The resolution of other issues raised was to be achieved by means of either legislation or referendum, counsel also said. He added there had been considerable fund-raising for the couple's case and that should be taken into account by the court.
Gerard Hogan SC, for the couple, said he was grateful the State was not seeking its costs against his clients but believed the State should bear the couple's costs because of the importance of the issues raised in the proceedings. The case was of profound constitutional importance, had raised issues of conspicuous constitutional novelty, and it was in the public interest that such issues be determined. An appeal was to be brought.
Giving her decision, Ms Justice Dunne said the normal rule on costs was that they follow the event, ie are paid by the losing party, but the State was not seeking its costs against the couple. With "a degree of reluctance", because she understood what was involved in bringing a case to court, she believed there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an order for costs in favour of the couple against the State. She would make no order for costs, meaning each side pays their own costs.