Traveller family were entitled to take Judicial Review case challenging “unfair” Circuit Court Discrimination appeal, Court of Appeal finds

9 June 2025

• The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal taken by a hotel which sought to overturn a High Court decision in favour of a young Traveller family who were subject to an “unfair” Circuit Court discrimination appeal. The family are represented by FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres).
• The hotel argued that the family should have taken a ‘statutory appeal’ and not a judicial review case but did not challenge the other findings of the High Court.
• In a Court of Appeal decision issued today, Mr Justice Meenan found that the family “have been ‘entirely successful’ in opposing the appeal”.

FLAC has welcomed today’s judgment of the Court of Appeal in Atlantic Troy Limited v Bridget O’Reilly [2025] IECA 130. The case centred around the procedural issue of whether the family were entitled to take a judicial review case in circumstances where the relevant legislation provides for a separate ‘statutory’ appeal procedure. The family pursued both options as a precautionary measure but were ultimately given permission by the High Court to take a judicial review case.  

In 2022, the Workplace Relations Commission found that the Charleville Park Hotel (which is owned by Atlantic Troy Limited) had discriminated against the family (on the Traveller Community and Housing Assistance grounds). The hotel had refused to honour their booking at the hotel (for a three-night stay during a period when they were homeless) for the stated reason that they could not provide a personal credit card. The family were awarded a compensation by the WRC and the Hotel was directed to review its stated credit card policy. The hotel successfully appealed the WRC ruling to the Circuit Court. In the judicial review case taken by the family, the High Court decided that the Circuit Court hearing “was unfair as a result of excessive intervention” by the Circuit Judge.

In his judgment dismissing the hotel’s appeal of the High Court decision, Mr Justice Meenan in the Court of Appeal found that it was appropriate for the family to take the judicial review case because that procedure allows the High Court judge to make findings of fact (while a statutory appeal would have been limited to questions of law). He noted: “The [High Court] judge was somewhat critical of the respondents pursuing both a statutory appeal and judicial review proceedings at the same time. I do not share that criticism.”

FLAC Managing Solicitor Sinéad Lucey commented today:

“This is the latest chapter in a long-running case that has now been heard by the Workplace Relations Commission, Circuit Court, High Court and the Court of Appeal. Our clients continue to demonstrate remarkable perseverance and bravery.

The decision of the Court of Appeal provides legal clarity and underscores the very important role of judicial review in upholding the rule of law and access to justice for people who have been subject to unfair decision-making processes in lower courts, tribunals or by State bodies.”

ENDS.

The full judgment of the Court of Appeal may be accessed here.

Read FLAC’s earlier statement about the High Court decision here.

About FLAC 

FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres) is an independent legal, human rights and equality organisation, which exists to promote access to justice.  It provides early and preventive legal assistance through a Telephone Information & Referral Line and Telephone Legal Advice Clinics.  As an Independent Law Centre, FLAC takes on a number of cases in the public interest each year, and operates a Roma Legal Clinic and Traveller Legal Service.