The High Court set aside an order renewing a summons against the Olympic Council of Ireland and struck out proceedings against the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, citing prolonged unexplained delay and resulting prejudice. The court did not determine the underlying allegations.
Siobhan Doyle’s case concerned alleged events at a 1991 training camp in Orlando, Florida, organised by Trojan Swimming Club. Doyle alleged that George Gibney sexually assaulted her at the camp and that the other defendants were negligent in their supervision of Gibney or the camp. Those allegations were not adjudicated in this judgment.
A plenary summons issued in April 1997. The judgment says that after the two organisations raised concerns about how they had been named, the title was amended by order of the High Court Master in June 1998, with a further order in November extending the time for service by three weeks. Neither organisation was served then. The summons was renewed ex parte in July 2009 and served in December that year.
The Olympic Council applied under Order 8, rule 2 to set aside the renewal order. Justice Hogan considered the matter afresh at an inter partes hearing, explaining that an ex parte renewal was provisional and that the court was not bound by the earlier decision. He said no explanation had been provided for the inactivity between November 1998 and July 2009, and no clear good reason for renewing the summons after that interval had been advanced. He set aside the renewal order.
The Irish Amateur Swimming Association separately sought to have the proceedings struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay. In weighing the balance of justice, Hogan cited evidence that the association had been restructured, that its current board members knew nothing of the claim until service in 2009, and that it could no longer realistically seek to join Trojan Swimming Club. He also noted that the association had settled related claims with insurers in 2008 and had no insurance cover available for a new claim of this kind.
Doyle had said generally that delay by her former solicitors led her to instruct a new firm. She had started separate professional-negligence proceedings against her former solicitor in March 2008, and a notice for trial had been served in that case. Hogan said that possible alternative remedy mitigated the prejudice Doyle would face if the case could not proceed. He concluded that the prejudice to the association outweighed the prejudice to Doyle and struck out the proceedings against it.
The court’s orders disposed of the proceedings through procedural applications. They did not resolve whether the alleged assault or negligence occurred.