A teacher has agreed before the High Court not to bring any new court applications over claims he was a victim of gender bias arising from being refused a place on a college course 10 years ago.
Mr Justcie John Hedigan expressed the view Patrick Kelly’s dispute with UCD over a refusal to give him a place on a masters in social science course in 2002 “does not rise above the level of hurt feelings".
It was a “public scandal” Mr Kelly’s case had been going on so long and he believed Mr Kelly should be prevented, by court order, bringing any more applications in relation to it, the judge said.
After UCD said it would accept an undertaking given by Mr Kelly yesterday in the witness box, the judge decided against making such a restraining order.
Mr Kelly undertook not to take any more cases against UCD in relation to the matter except where he has a right of appeal on a point of law about his substantive discrimination case, or in relation to costs orders made against him.
The judge said he had considerable reservations about accepting Mr Kelly’s undertaking and was strongly inclined to issue a order permanently staying cases relating to this matter in both the High Court and Circuit Court in the interests of preserving the court’s processes and ensuring proper utilisation of limited resources.
However, because UCD had indicated willingness to accept the undertaking, the judge said he felt constrained to accept it.
Mr Kelly’s proceedings arose from a complaint he made in 2002 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal after being initially refused a place on the 2002-04 masters course.
Mr Kelly (33) Deansrath Avenue, Clondalkin, claimed he was more qualified than the least qualified female applicant and the decision to not offer him a place was based on his gender.
Mr Justice Hedigan said, when asked by the court about the nature of his complaint, Mr Kelly had said he was treated rudely when he went for interview for the course and that, plus the refusal to give him a place, amounted to discriminatory conduct.
Although refused a place in March 2002, he was offered one in August 2002 when he had already made his complaint to the Equality Tribunal. He refused the place.
In September 2006, the tribunal found he had failed to establish prima facie gender discrimination. He appealed that decision to the Circuit Court but the appeal was put on hold while he sought discovery orders requiring him to be provided with applications and scoring sheets of 49 candidates for the Masters course.
These were refused after UCD argued the applications contained personal details of the candidates.
He appealed to the High Court which made a provisional finding UCD did not have to disclose, in an unredacted form, the documents sought Mr Justice Hedigan noted.
The High Court also referred certain questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) mainly relating to whether EU anti-discrimination law entitled a person who believed they were discriminated against in cases like this to information on other applicants.
Mr Justice Hedigan said it was clear each finding of the ECJ was unfavourable to Mr Kelly’s case save in respect of one issue - which had already been the subject of the High Court’s provisional finding - and which the ECJ found must be determined by the national court.
The judge found there was nothing in the ECJ ruling that could give grounds for changing the High Court’s provisional finding. The right of course applicants to confidentiality outweighed Mr Kelly’s right to disclosure of unredacted documents, he said.
Mr Kelly had also sought for Mr Justice Hedigan to excuse himself hearing the current matter.
Mr Justice Hedigan refused to do so, saying no grounds had been advanced to support a reasonable apprehension of an unfair hearing.
The third matter before the court was whether Mr Kelly should be subject to a restraining order in relation to future court applications, the judge said. Mr Kelly had “a pattern of continual application to the courts which has served to prolong his proceedings” and UCD had also expressed concern about the “untold cost” of this.
When Marguerite Bolger SC, for UCD, said six costs orders are being sought by it against Mr Kelly, the judge said it was “a public scandal that this has continued for as long as it has.
*
This article was amended on May 10th, 2012, to address an issue that arose during the editing process and on July 6th, 2012, to correct a factual error.