Graham Linehan’s and rights activists’ cases against Belfast pub to be identified within weeks

Lead cases among discrimination claims by Father Ted writer Graham Linehan and other women’s rights campaigners against a Belfast pub are set to be identified within weeks, a court has heard.
The group is suing the owners of Robinson’s Bar over disputed allegations they were unlawfully refused service because of gender-critical beliefs. One of the campaigners is also seeking £20,000 (€24,000) in damages, claiming he was assaulted and left permanently scarred.
In the first case of its kind in Northern Ireland, 23 civil actions have been lodged in connection with the incident in the city centre pub on April 16th, 2023.
During a review hearing at Laganside Courts in Belfast on Monday, lawyers indicated a meeting to resolve procedural issues is due to be held later this week. Several test cases are also expected to be identified by early next month in an attempt to advance towards a full trial.
The plaintiffs are claiming direct discrimination on the basis of their views on gender in the lawsuit mounted against Wine Inns Ltd over the encounter in Robinson’s.
Mr Linehan and other campaigners had just taken part in a Let Women Speak rally headed by controversial activist Kellie-Jay Keen.
Following the demonstration, they were said to have spent up to 90 minutes in the bar. With some of them wearing clothing with logos in support of women’s rights at the time, they contend that further service was then denied.
One of them claims that a member of staff assaulted him, causing a facial scar.
Two associates who say they witnessed what happened to him are also claiming up to £8,000 compensation as alleged secondary victims.
Separate cases are also being advanced on behalf of the other 20 members of the group.
All of them were allegedly discriminated against and refused service because of their beliefs, a previous court heard.
Wine Inns denies any discrimination or less favourable treatment of the plaintiffs.
The alleged assault on one of the campaigners is also denied, amid counterclaims that his behaviour had created apprehension among members of staff.
A further part of the defence involves assertions that even if there was any difference in treatment, it had nothing to do with the group’s political opinion.
The case is expected to reach trial early next year.