The Court of Appeal has ordered a complete retrial of Rowena Lynch’s claim against two trustees of Mullingar Rugby Club over a serious assault in November 1997. It did not decide where the assault happened or whether the club’s trustees were liable.
The appeal concerned a High Court decision by Butler J. in October 2003 dismissing Ms Lynch’s claim. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Hogan J. on 13 January 2016, concluded that errors in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence meant his finding that the assault did not happen inside the club could not stand. It remitted the case to the High Court for a complete retrial.
Ms Lynch’s case was that Paul Jordan assaulted her inside the club after she intervened when her brother, Damien Lynch, was attacked. She said Jordan kneed her in the face while security guards watched, and that guards then removed her and refused to let her back in or call an ambulance. Those were her allegations, not findings made by the Court of Appeal. The judgment records that Jordan was later convicted in the District Court of an offence under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 in connection with the assault.
Witness accounts differed. Kenneth McDermott said he saw the assault inside the club and that security staff did not intervene. Security guard Martin Fagan described removing Jordan and said he later saw Ms Lynch bleeding outside, but did not say he saw her assaulted there. Another guard, Oliver McCaffrey, said he and a colleague escorted Ms Lynch out after she threw a punch, and later called an ambulance when they found her injured in the car park.
Hogan J. said the trial judge had described McDermott as truthful and significant, yet effectively rejected his account because he had not intervened or checked on Ms Lynch. The appeal court also found material differences between Fagan’s and McCaffrey’s accounts, despite the trial judge treating one as largely corroborating the other. It said the High Court ruling did not explain how the assault happened outside the club if it had not occurred inside.
The court acknowledged that the trial judge had to assess conflicting testimony and could prefer one account over another. But it held that his findings were tainted by error and could not stand. The retrial will allow the evidence and competing accounts to be considered again; the appeal judgment made no final finding on the trustees’ liability.