Courts

Man ‘heavily involved in GAA’ alleges assault and false imprisonment on Croke Park pitch

Limerick man says he was ‘unexpectedly set upon’ by security staff when he entered the pitch following 2018 All-Ireland hurling final

A view of Croke Park stadium in Dublin. Limerick man Frank Reidy brought an action against the GAA and Sablecross Limited trading as Frontline Securities. Photograph: Alan Betson
A view of Croke Park stadium in Dublin. Limerick man Frank Reidy brought an action against the GAA and Sablecross Limited trading as Frontline Securities. Photograph: Alan Betson
Paul Neilan
Thu Oct 24 2024 - 17:20

The High Court has set aside a ruling against a security company in the case of a Limerick man who says he is “heavily involved in the GAA” and alleges that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned by security personnel and stewards upon entering the pitch after the 2018 All-Ireland hurling final at Croke Park.

In February the High Court granted a default non-appearance judgment in favour of Frank Reidy, of Belville, Kilmeedy, Co Limerick, in the absence of one of the defendants in the case.

Mr Reidy has submitted to the High Court that after the final on August 19th, 2018, when Limerick beat Galway in Croke Park, he entered the pitch and, “being heavily involved in the GAA”, was asked by management to collect the jerseys and bibs from the pitch. The plaintiff submitted that he informed a member of the security staff and/or stewards of his function and was granted access to the pitch.

Mr Reidy claims he saw the wife and the father of one of the players having difficulty getting access to the pitch and went to their assistance. The plaintiff says he was “suddenly and unexpectedly set upon” by personnel and asserts that he was assaulted, had his arm twisted behind his back and was “forcefully” ejected from the pitch.

READ MORE

Mr Reidy brought an action against the GAA, which is listed in the case as “Tom Ryan” – a nominee of Cummann Lúthcleas Gael (GAA) – and Sablecross Limited trading as Frontline Securities.

In a sworn statement made by a director of Sablecross, Allan Gannon, it is asserted that Mr Reidy encountered its operations manager on the day and indicated that he was a member of the Limerick County hurling board, which would have permitted him access to the pitch. However, it is claimed that “upon inquiries with the Limerick management team, the operations manager discovered this not to be true”.

It is submitted that “the plaintiff was asked to leave the pitch and return to his seat”. It is asserted by the company that the plaintiff became abusive and aggressive to the extent of causing injury to the operations manager and ultimately involving Garda intervention. An operative then removed the plaintiff from the grounds and the gates were closed to prevent the plaintiff’s re-entry, claims Sablecross.

The High Court had been told that the incident was captured on CCTV footage by the GAA.

Ms Justice Denise Brett said that it was “common case” that the main physical injury claimed by the plaintiff was an exacerbation of a pre-existing injury to his left shoulder.

Ms Justice Brett said that the first defendant, the GAA, has filed a full defence and proceedings have progressed “as normal”, with the case awaiting a hearing date. However, she set aside a February ruling against the second defendant, Sablecross Ltd, over a failure of appearance. Ms Justice Brett said she was satisfied that there had been a miscommunication of correspondence involving insurance companies in the case, and that the defendant believed that the insurer’s solicitor would be present in the court for any hearing.

The delays in the case before the default judgment involved documents incorrectly sent to Sablecross’s old address, the company having moved premises in March 2020. The case’s timeline, the judge said, contained a “series of errors” concerning correspondence.

“I am satisfied that...in the interests of justice the judgment that was obtained in default of appearance ought to be set aside, notwithstanding that the efforts on behalf of the plaintiff’s solicitors were at all times above reproach,” she said.