Author Rosita Sweetman loses appeal in Coillte challenge

Author Rosita Sweetman has lost her appeal over the halting of her case against Coillte over the alleged spraying of a pesticide near her home in Co Wicklow.

Ms Sweetman, a founding member of the Irish Women’s Liberation movement in 1970 and author of a number of books, initiated her case 14 years ago.

She sought to have it reinstated after a High Court judge last year halted it due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.

Dismissing her appeal on Monday, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern, giving the three judge court’s ruling, said, in the particular circumstances, the court would be failing in its duty if were to allow the proceedings continue as the delay involved would give rise to a serious prejudice to Coillte.

Liability for the costs of the failed appeal will be decided at a later date.

The case centred on the alleged spraying of the pesticide Lindane on lands adjoining Ms Sweetman’s property at Hollywood, Co Wicklow.

In May 2017, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty dismissed three sets of related proceedings involving Ms Sweetman, her son and daughter on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, Mr Justice McGovern outlined that Ms Sweetman’s claim was 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 defence denying all claims.

‘Hanging her hat’

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, when the appeal began, Ms Sweetman’s counsel said she was “hanging her hat” on another judgment of the court concerning delay.

That stated, although the particular plaintiff was guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, special circumstances existed to satisfy the court the balance of justice was served by not dismissing the proceedings.

Mr Justice McGovern said, while there were undoubtedly parallels between the two cases, there were a number of distinguishing features.

These included that, in the Sweetman case, a number of witnesses are unavailable because they had died or are living abroad at an unknown address.

The proceedings had begun in 2004, 22 years after the alleged events complained of, he said.

While the High Court noted Coillte did contribute to the delay, it also said that was to a very significantly lesser extent than Ms Sweetman.

In seeking to halt the case, Coillte argued it was statute barred and it would suffer significant prejudice should it go to trial now. It said its then environment manager in the area including Hollywood is now aged 79 and living at an unknown address in Greece.

That 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, the company said.

Mr Justice McGovern said he was satisfied the case was not of such complexity to justify the delay involved.