The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

LY/AUGUST

1991

is reasonable and, therefore, within

s.3(1). It would merely suggest that

the code was not being used for

indirect social discrimination, but

the code will still fall to be judged

according to whether it was an

intrinsically reasonable one.

Restricted Area Dress Codes

As regards hotel dress codes that do

not operate from point of entry

throughout the entire hotel, and only

operate in a specific part of the

hotel, usually the restaurant, the

hotel has a much greater freedom to

fix whatever dress code it wishes.

Restricted area dress codes are

much more likely to be reasonable,

and therefore legal, than entire area

codes. This is because once the

customer is admitted into the hotel

and served as he wishes, his right

under s.3(1) is exhausted. The right

does not extend to entry into any

particular lounge or restaurant so

long as there is still some acceptable

place where he can be served.

would seem, then, that the hotel

could set whatever type of dress

code it wished for access to its

lounge or restaurant, and the code

could be as standards - related as

the hotel wished.

(1) See Dail Debates Vol. 198

Col. 842, Vol. 199 Col. 433

435.

(2) The constitutionality of Title

II of the 1964 Act - dealing

with public accommodation

discrimination - has been

upheld in a hotel case -

Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S.

(1964) 379 U.S. 241.

(3) The provisions of s.2(1) of

Prohibition of Incitement to

Racial, Religious or National

Hatred Act 1988 could, how-

ever, be relevant in the right

circumstances. Section 2(1)

criminalises words and be-

haviour which are heard or

seen in a public place which

are insulting and which, in all

the circumstances, are likely

to stir up hatred against a

group on account of their

race, colour, nationality,

religion, ethnic or national

origins or membership of the

travelling community. While

this provision might not have

an obvious application to

hotel refusals, it seems quite

conceivable that if a hotel

refusal is carried out in front

of other people while inside or

outside the hotel, and the

hotel employee is indiscreet

182

enough to let it be known that

he objects to the racial or

itinerant origins of the

customer, and this is likely to

.stir up hatred against the

group to which the pros-

pective customer belongs,

then an offence under the

1988 Act may be committed.

(4)

Constantine

-v-

Imperial

Hotels

[1894] 1KB 693.

(5)

State -v- Steele

(1890) 106

NC 766, 782. See Hartmann,

Racial and Religious Discri-

mination by Innkeepers in

USA (1949) 12 MLR 449.

(6) In the Dail Debates - Vol.

198 Col. 842 - on the Hotel

Proprietors Bill in 1962, the

then Minister for Justice (C.

Haughey) stated " i t seems

absolutely clear to me that no

Irish court would hold that

colour would be a reasonable

ground for refusing admission

to any prospective guest".

(7) See

Consolidated Hotels -v-

Ke/sey

[1982] 2 NZLR 492,

469, where a New Zealand

court held a general policy of

refusal to serve members of

gangs illegal under a law

similar to our 1963 Act.

(8)

Kenny -v- O'Loughlin

(1944)

78 ILTR 116.

(9) See

Hoban

-v-

Royal

Hibernian Hotel

(1945) 80

ILTR 61, 64.

(10) S.3(2) of the 1963 Act is

intended to prevent a hotel

refusing a customer by upping

its prices on the spot. Yet, by

only requiring the prices

charged to be whatever is

current in the hotel, it does

not prevent a hotel from using

its prices policy as a cover for

refusing customers. Before

1963, the hotel was obliged

to charge reasonable prices,

and was therefore restricted

in using its prices policy as a

cover for refusing undesir-

ables. The change effected in

the 1963 Act was attributed

in t he Dail Debates to

representations f r om the

hotel industry - Dail Debates

Vol. 198 Col. 399, Vol. 199

Col. 1106.

(11) An example of a hotel

restaurant dress code is that

customers must not wear

overcoats while sitting at the

table.

See Lynam -v- Central

Hotel

[1959] Ir. Jur. Rep. 56.

(12)

R -v- Sprague

(1899) 12 JP

233.

James Nash

F.S.S. Dip.

Forensic Document Examiner

and

Handwriting Consultant

38, Monastery Rise,

Clondalkin, Dublin 22.

Telephone: (01) 571323

The First Bayslde Village

Development Society Limited

Residents Association

(Registered under the

Friendly Society's Act)

The Management Committee of the First

Bayside Village Development Society Ltd.,

would like to draw Solicitors' attention to

Item 19, 4th Schedule Lease of Bayside,

which deals with transfer of shares to the

Society.

Failure by solicitors to comply with this Item

in the conveyancing of house sales in

Bayside is viewed in a very serious light as

it is the custom of the above Society to

ensure that all monies owing to it are paid

before any transfer is approved.

Any queries regarding the above should be sent to:

John Byrne

Sutton Grove, Bayside, Sutton, Dublin 13.

TURKS AND CAICOS

ISLANDS AND

THE ISLE OF MAN

Samuel McCleery

Attorney - at - Law and Solicitor of PO Box

127 in Grand Turk,Turks and Caicos Islands,

British West Indies and at 1 Castle Street,

Castletown, Isle of Man will be pleased to

accept instructions generally from Irish

Solicitors in the formation and administration

of Exempt Turks and Caicos Island

Companies and Non - Resident Isle of Man

Companies as well as Trust Administration

G. T Office:-

Tel: 809 946 2818

Fax: 809 946 2819

I.O.M.Office:-

Tel: 0624 822210

Telex : 628285 SamdanG

Fax: 0624 823799