Man loses claim against well-known Dublin nightclub after he 'danced erratically' while preparing for 'X Factor'
Published 24/06/2016 | 11:57
A DUBLIN man has lost a claim for victimisation against a nightclub that refused him entry after he had, on a previous occasion, "danced erratically" while preparing for TV3’s X-Factor auditions.
Barrister Dorothy Collins said that in February 2015 staff members at Buck Whaleys, of Lower Leeson Street, Dublin, had asked Vytautas Jurksa to calm down after customers had complained about his dancing.
Ms Collins, counsel for the club, told the Circuit Court that Mr Jurksa, a Polish national, of St Martin’s House, Waterloo Road, Dublin, had left the club “in a huff” before returning with two gardaí as he alleged he had been discriminated.
Ms Collins said Mr Jurksa, who the court heard had been dancing like Mick Jagger or Elvis, flashing his legs and arms, had also claimed the club’s action had interfered with his preparation to the X-factor auditions.
Circuit Court President Mr Justice Raymond Groake heard that Jurksa last year lost a discrimination claim in the District Court against Stonehead Ltd, which trades as Buck Whaleys and legal costs had been awarded against him. He had not appealed that decision.
Judge Groarke was told that Jurksa later brought another District Court claim against the club after being refused entry last January, because of his previous behaviour. He had claimed he not been allowed in the club because of his first court case and therefore had been victimised.
The District Court had refused to hear his application because he had not paid the legal costs from his previous claim. The court had adjourned the case generally with liberty to re-enter, on the condition that he discharged the owed sum of €750 plus VAT.
Jurksa had then appealed that decision to the Circuit Court. Following an application by Jurksa, who represented himself, to hear the claim in its entirety, Judge Groarke found he had not been victimised.
Judge Groarke told Ms Collins, who appeared with Thomas Loomes solicitors, that he was satisfied after hearing the evidence of the club staff that Mr Jurksa had been refused entry because of his previous behaviour.
Giving his judgment, which was interrupted several times by Jurksa, Judge Groarke said the fact that the club had not responded to correspondence or that a security officer had refused to give his licence number could not constitute victimisation. The judge struck out Jurksa’s claim.