THE HIGH COURT has been asked to overturn a lower court’s rejection of claims that four members of the Irish Travelling Community were discriminated against when a hotel owned by businessman Pat McDonagh refused to allow them check in.

Bridget O’Reilly, her partner Philip O’Neill and their two young children sought to book a room at the Charleville Park Hotel, Co Cork on the 28th of September 2018, after they became homeless after their caravan was deemed unfit for habitation.

They claimed that despite having booked three nights’ accommodation they were denied access to the hotel, trading as Atlantic Troy Limited.

The family claimed that the refusal constituted discriminatory treatment contrary to Equal Status laws because they were in receipt of Housing Assistance Payments and members of the Traveller community.

The hotel denied that it had discriminated against the family.

It claimed that the family had not complied with its credit card policy, which it says is required to secure a booking at the hotel.

The family had used a debit card to secure the booking.

The family’s complaints against the hotel were upheld by the Workplace Relations Commission, which awarded them a total of €22,000.

The hotel appealed that decision to the Circuit Court which on October 18th last, allowed its appeal, and set aside the WRC’s findings that the family had been discriminated against.

The Circuit Court found that the hotel was entitled to rely on its policy of requiring anyone booking a room to have a credit card.

Arising out of that decision the family, represented by Free Legal Aid Centres in Dublin, have brought four individual High Court judicial review cases aimed at setting aside the findings of Judge James O’Donoghue.

In proceedings against the hotel, it is claimed that Judge O’Donoghue conducted himself during the hearing in a manner that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and predetermination of the appeal before it was heard.

It is claimed that Judge, who had described the couple as being respectable people, also referred to them as “itinerants” which they say is an offensive and derogatory term used to describe members of the Traveller community.

They also claim that the judge praised the hotel’s only witness, the hotel itself and business.

This it is claimed gave rise to apprehension that the court heard was unfair.

They also claim that the Circuit Court’s order dismissing the WRC’s findings was unreasonable, irrational and made without jurisdiction.

As well as an order setting aside the Circuit Court’s findings and if necessary remitted back to that Court for a new hearing, they also seek various declarations.

These include a declaration that the Circuit Court decision was made in breach of the family members’ constitutional rights to natural justice, fair procedures, ECHR rights, and the court did not provide adequate reasons for its decision.

The family’s actions were mentioned in an ex-parte hearing, before Mr Justice Charles Meenan at the High Court on Monday.

However, the judge, expressing some concerns about the manner in which the allegations in the claims have been put, said that he was not prepared at this stage to grant the parties permission to bring their challenges.

The judge said he needed to see a transcript of what was said during the Circuit Court hearing, taken from the DAR recording, before he would be able to decide whether leave should be granted in the cases.

The family’s barrister Helen Callanan SC told the court that a transcript would be furnished to the court by her clients’ solicitors.

Counsel said that the respondent’s lawyers had opposed her side’s application to the Circuit Court for a copy of the DAR recording of those proceedings.

In reply, Mr Justice Meenan directed that the family’s solicitor be provided with a copy of the DAR recording of the hearing.

The cases were adjourned to a date in May.