The former president of Kings Hospital swimming club yesterday withdrew his High Court application for an order which would have had the effect of delaying completion of the Murphy report on sexual abuse in swimming.
The withdrawal was announced during an application for legal costs made on behalf of Mr Michael McCann.
Mr Gerard Durcan SC, for Mr McCann, said Dr Roderick Murphy SC, who is conducting the inquiry, had received a letter last month containing allegations against Mr McCann.
Mr Durcan did not read out the allegations in court but observed that Mr Justice McCracken would see that they would have impacted on his client's good name.
Mr Durcan said that by coming to court Mr McCann had now discovered there was nothing in Dr Murphy's report based on the evidence of a third party letter which Mr McCann needed to challenge.
Mr Durcan said he had received three drafts of the report being prepared by Dr Murphy. It appeared the vast majority of the allegations in the letter of April 2nd were not being repeated in the report.
They had been furnished with a 16-page portion of the draft report yesterday morning that touched on Mr McCann and he was satisfied there was nothing in those documents that would breach his client's constitutional rights in the sense of evidence based on third-party allegations.
Counsel said his client was willing to participate in Dr Murphy's inquiry. Mr McCann intended to make submissions and it had always been his wish to do so.
Mr Durcan said his client's solicitors had written on April 8th last seeking the identity of the person who had made the allegations, when they were made and the evidence to support them. They were informed the letter had been submitted to the inquiry on the basis of strict confidentiality.
Mr McCann's solicitors had informed Dr Murphy they were anxious to co-operate with his inquiry but could not until they received more information about the allegations. In reply, Mr McCann was, in effect, told he was not getting any further information.
On April 23rd last they got a commitment for the first time that they would be given a two-page draft extract of the appropriate section of the report relating to Mr McCann. It did not say anything about the allegations contained in the letter of April 2nd.
Five out of the six allegations appeared to have been dealt with but at that stage - April 23rd - Mr McCann's lawyers were in the dark about what had happened and had not been given any assurances. They had not been and would not be given any of the findings.
Mr Durcan said they later received a 2 1/2-page extract. They still got no assurances with regard to the allegations. Yesterday they had received a third draft, 16 pages long.
In the material there was reference to a 1992 inquiry, and Mr McCann was given no information about that. It appeared from the latest draft the allegations in the letter "had died" and that was of importance to Mr McCann.
Mr Durcan said Mr McCann would claim the account in regard to the 1992 inquiry was inaccurate and factually incorrect although they could see how Dr Murphy came to an incorrect view.
Mr Maurice Collins, for Dr Murphy, said there was no basis on which his client should be made pay Mr McCann's costs. Dr Murphy had indicated in correspondence that he sought to deal fairly with all parties who had an interest in or connection with the subject matter of the inquiry.
Submissions had been invited, but Mr McCann had not made a submission. Dr Murphy put certain allegations in which Mr McCann had, or might be thought to have, a reasonable interest. That was done by way of a letter to Mr McCann, and later he was given portions of the draft report.
Mr Collins said if costs were granted to Mr McCann it would be to assume that Mr McCann would have succeeded had be proceeded with his application.
All that happened was that Mr McCann had conceded his application was ill-conceived.
Mr Justice McCracken said he would give his decision on costs today.