Teacher suing UCD over gender discrimination claim seeks to cross-examine college's chief legal officer

High Court Reporters

A teacher is pursuing a 24-year-old gender discrimination claim against UCD, alleging the university refused him a place on a Master's course despite him being "more qualified than at least the least-qualified" woman who was chosen ahead of him.

Patrick Kelly of Edenderry, Co Offaly, applied to the High Court on Thursday seeking permission to cross-examine the university's director of legal services, Julian Bostridge.

Judge Mary Rose Gearty fixed a date in May 2027 for the hearing of the motion.

Judge Gearty set a further date of July 15th for the substantive hearing of the matter, at which time it will be 25 years old.

Kelly has taken his case against University College Dublin, National University of Ireland, Dublin, with the Director of the Equality Tribunal as a named notice party.

He submits that when he applied for a place on a social sciences Masters course in March 2002, he was "under-marked" because of his gender and discriminated against during his course interview. In his submissions, he said he was "more qualified than at least the least-qualified woman applicant" who was offered a place on the course.

Mr Kelly submits that he is seeking to compel the delivery of answers to what are termed 'interrogatories' - pre-trial questions - regarding his substantive proceedings alleging sex discrimination against UCD under Section 7 (2) (a) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

He said he submitted 20 interrogatories but received only five answers. He now seeks answers to the remaining 15.

Over the past 24 years, the case has been before the Circuit Court, the European Court of Justice and the High Court.

In a responding affidavit for UCD written in June this year, Mr Bostridge submits that a 2012 judgment by the Circuit Court said that UCD were only "compelled to answer five out of the 20 interrogatories raised and the balance were disallowed".

Bostridge, a solicitor, submits that the application to cross-examine him is in aid of Mr Kelly's appeal against this judgment.

He submits that the remaining interrogatories go towards facts in the evidential aspect of the case and not legal issues.

"What is disputed between the parties is whether or not it is necessary that questions be answered by way of interrogatories and whether they are necessary or appropriate", when a substantive hearing is pending, he submits.

Bostridge submits that there were no conflicts of evidence in the case but "it is a conflict of legal position as to the 'status' of a fact sought to be submitted".

"These are matters of legal submission, which do not require cross-examination, and will not assist the court in deciding," he submits.

Judge Gearty fixed May 13 of next year for the hearing of the motion on whether Mr Bostridge can be cross-examined by Mr Kelly, who represented himself in the matter.