Author Rosita Sweetman loses appeal in case against Coillte over alleged spraying of pesticide near her home

By Ann O'Loughlin

Author Rosita Sweetman today failed in her bid to have a High Court decision to dismiss her case against Coillte over the alleged spraying of a pesticide near her home overturned.

Ms Sweetman, who is a founding member of the Irish Women's Liberation movement in 1970 and the author of a number of books had sought to have her case which she first began fourteen years ago reinstated after a High Court judge had last year dismissed it due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Dismissing her appeal today, the three-judge Court of Appeal ruled the High Court was correct in its decision.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern who delivered the appeal court judgement said in the particular circumstances of the case the court would be failing in its duty if were to allow the proceedings to continue as it would give rise to a serious prejudice to Coillte because of the delay.

The case centres on the alleged spraying of the pesticide Lindane on lands adjoining her the Sweetman property at Hollywood, Co Wicklow. Coillte has denied all claims.

Who will pay the legal costs of the failed appeal will be decided at a later date.

In the High Court in May last year, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty in relation to three related proceedings involving Ms Sweetman her son and daughter dismissed the cases on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Outlining the appeal case, Mr Justice McGovern said Ms Sweetman claims that from in or about 1982 and in particular from 1995 to 1998 Coillte allegedly wrongfully caused or permitted a pesticide Lindane to be sprayed on land adjoining her property and to allegedly enter her water supply.

As a result, Ms Sweetman claims her health had been adversely affected. Coillte lodged a full denial of all claims.

Mr Justice McGovern said although the grounds of appeal purported to challenge the High Court judge's finding that Ms Sweetman's delay was inordinate and inexcusable, these grounds were not advanced at the hearing of the appeal.

Instead the judge said when the hearing began Ms Sweetman's counsel said she was "hanging her hat" on another judgement of the court in which, although the person taking the case had been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay in the prosecution of the proceedings, special circumstances existed to satisfy the court the balance of justice was served by not making an order dismissing the proceedings.

Mr Justice McGovern said while there were undoubtedly parallels between the two cases, there were a number of distinguishing features including in the Sweetman case that a number of witnesses are unavailable because they had died or are abroad at an unknown address.

The judge said the proceedings had begun in 2004, twenty-two years after the alleged events complained of and while Mr Justice Moriarty in the High Court had said the Coillte did contribute to the delay, he ruled it was to a very significantly lesser extent than Ms Sweetman.

Coillte claimed the case was statute barred and that it would suffer significant prejudice if the case were to go to trial.

It said its then environment manager in the area which included Hollywood was now 79 years of age and lived in Greece and his address was unknown.

Coillte contended the environment manager's evidence would be crucial to its contention it did not spray the pesticide on any of its lands adjoining Ms Sweetman's property.

Mr Justice McGovern said he was satisfied the case is not of such complexity that could justify the delay that has taken place.