GAA:The GAA is considering an immediate response to the interim injunction granted to the University of Limerick on Tuesday.

The association is understood to regard the action taken in the High Court to be a potentially critical challenge to its new disciplinary structure and in particular to the standing of the Disputes Resolution Authority, set up two years ago to prevent members and units taking the GAA to court.

GAA President Nickey Brennan, who only heard about the injunction on Tuesday night, yesterday reacted briefly: "All I want to say about this at the moment is that we won't be sitting back on this and doing nothing."

It was further being strongly speculated within Croke Park that the association had no option but to consult its lawyers with a view to going to court and applying to have the temporary injunction lifted or perhaps to have the date for the full hearing, fixed for next Monday, brought forward to this week.

But according to one legal source, overturning a temporary order when a full hearing has been set for within a few days could prove difficult unless the GAA can demonstrate that it is sufficiently important to move forward the hearing.

The action taken earlier this week by the UL club was to stop the Hearings Committee of the Comhairle Árdoideachais (CA), the third-level-colleges authority of the GAA, dealing with a case concerning the club chair, Dr Peter Tiernan, one of its players, Kieran Joyce, and the club secretary, Brendan Bugler.

The last named is a member of the Clare senior hurling panel and, having played against Antrim last week, is expected to be named in Saturday's team for the crucial qualifier match with Galway.

By securing an interim injunction from Judge Vivian Lavin, the applicants ensured that Bugler would not be suspended for the upcoming match by preventing the HEC Hearings Committee from processing the charges against Joyce, from Rower Inistioge and a member of the Kilkenny intermediate hurling panel, Bugler and Tiernan. Joyce played in the match in question back on March 29th after UL claim they had cleared him to do so.

The argument that he was ineligible rests on the fact Joyce had already played at the top Fitzgibbon Cup level for the university earlier in the year and that this hadn't been disclosed to Croke Park when clearance was sought.

The matter didn't fully come to light until the end of May when the CA's Competitions Control Committee decided that the eligibility rule had been breached and that 12-week suspensions should be proposed for the player and the relevant officers of the UL club.

Having lodged their intention to seek a hearing, UL and the CA disagreed over a date, the university looking to have the whole matter postponed until September, but the Hearings Committee of the CA wishing to expedite it.

These charges had been levelled by the CCC on the basis of the eligibility of Joyce to play for UL in this year's CA intermediate final against Limerick IT.

The proposed suspension was 12 weeks. The members in question could have accepted that or availed of their right to have the matter heard - which they did.

By taking out an injunction, UL ensured the Hearings Committee never got that opportunity.

The UL contention is that they weren't being given a fair opportunity to present their case. What is most unusual - and disturbing from Croke Park's point of view - is that the applicants went straight to the High Court without taking their argument to any of the GAA's disciplinary bodies.

The injunction was secured ex parte, in other words, without the GAA being represented in court and despite Rule 6 of the Official Guide, which states inter alia: "Members and units shall be bound to resolve any and all disputes that arise within the framework of the existing procedures . . . Members shall not resort to court proceedings in disregard of these procedures, the appeal system and the dispute resolution provisions."

Four-and-a-half years ago the High Court set a standard for injunctions in the case of Na Fianna's attempt to delay the Dublin county football championship.

Refusing the application, Mr Justice Smith in the High Court referred to the then Rule 151 (f), which states, "in particular there shall be no appeal to any court of law or to any outside body on any matter" (the equivalent of the current Rule 154 ). It was held that short of there being a deprivation of constitutional rights or breach of natural law, disputes within the GAA should remain in-house.

The judge referred to the dispute as being a matter of interpretation on the basis that Na Fianna's case was grounded on their interpretation of the rules. But he added that the structure of the GAA was the proper forum for such a dispute.

Without passing comment on what he thought of the club's argument, he was simply saying that their interpretation had got a proper hearing at county board and provincial council level.

The High Court might well come to a similar decision in the present case, particularly as UL haven't been through a single hearing within the GAA's structure.

But the court might not do so until Monday.