Swimming SA faces fresh legal pressure as artistic duo ask court to compel disclosure

Artistic swimmers Laura Strugnell and Jessica Hayes‑Hill have filed a court application to compel Swimming South Africa (SSA) to hand over documents in their ongoing lawsuit battle.

The athletes have also demanded that SSA respond to formal admissions that go to the heart of the case, which goes back more than two years.

What began in February 2024 as a contested disciplinary action at the World Aquatics Championships in Doha has since escalated into a R7.2-million damages claim currently before the Gauteng Division of the High Court.

This is the latest development in a saga that has raised questions about transparency, accountability and athlete welfare. The new application comes after SSA failed to comply with an agreed pre‑trial timetable requiring it to respond to the athletes’ discovery demands by 10 April.

Despite reminders, no responses were forthcoming from SSA, according to a founding affidavit submitted to the court by the athletes’ lawyer on 16 April 2026.

The athletes argue that SSA’s continued non‑compliance is prejudicing their ability to prepare for trial and reflects a broader pattern of procedural evasion.

Failed to comply

An affidavit submitted to the Gauteng Division of the High Court seeking it to compel SSA’s compliance by the athletes’ lawyer, David Burrows, lays out the timeline of agreed procedure between the applicants (Hayes-Hill and Strugnell) and the first and second respondents (SSA) and Sascoc (SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee).

“The parties will deliver any further requests for particulars and admissions on or before Friday, 6 March 2026, and responses thereto will be delivered on or before Friday 10 April 2026,” the affidavit states. “The procedural timetable… was accordingly agreed between the parties and confirmed on behalf of the respondents.”

SSA missed the 10 April deadline.

“By 10 April 2026, no response had been received from the First Respondent to the applicants’ request for admissions.

“On 10 April 2026, as a further collegial indulgence and in an attempt to avoid unnecessary interlocutory litigation, I caused a further letter/email to be addressed to the Respondents’ attorneys of record reminding them of their non-compliance and granting them a further two (2) days within which to respond.

“Despite that indulgence, and despite the agreed timetable previously recorded and confirmed, the Respondents have still failed to respond.”

This is not the first time SSA has missed critical deadlines in the litigation.

Doha incident

In February 2024, Strugnell and Hayes-Hill were selected to represent SA at the World Aquatics Championships, a key Olympic qualifier.

On 1 February 2024, the athletes were served with a disciplinary notice via WhatsApp, alleging “deceitful actioning of training protocol without management approval”.

According to their documented defence papers, the notice provided 45 minutes of preparation time before a hearing was scheduled to commence.

Following this, the athletes were withdrawn from the competition and returned to SA. The athletes contested these actions, leading to an internal SSA appeal hearing in June 2024.

The appeal panel concluded that the disciplinary process was “not procedurally and substantively fair” and that the sanctions were imposed incorrectly, citing a failure to comply with SSA’s own disciplinary protocol in “every material respect”.

As Daily Maverick reported in December 2024, the federation’s internal disciplinary case against the duo collapsed twice – first before an appeal panel, and later before an independent arbitrator who dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction.

Those rulings found the original disciplinary process in Doha to be procedurally and substantively flawed, with SSA failing to follow its own rules.

The federation has never reviewed or challenged those findings.

Seeking justice

In September 2024, the athletes instituted an action against SSA and Sascoc, claiming approximately R7.2-million.

The breakdown of the claim includes R996,000 for lost sponsorships, R5.2-million for training and competition costs, and R1-million for general damages related to mental anguish and reputational harm.

The litigation has been marked by delays and procedural missteps on SSA’s part.

According to court documents, after filing a notice to defend in March 2025, the federation repeatedly failed to file its plea within the prescribed time periods, even after being granted extensions.

This led the athletes to issue a Notice of Bar and move for default judgment.

In June 2025, by agreement between the parties, the court uplifted the bar, and SSA was ordered to pay costs for the delay.

SSA filed its plea later that month, denying the allegations, arguing that the athletes were at fault and that an indemnity clause in their athlete agreement precluded the claim.

Discovery

The dispute has recently moved into the discovery phase, where both parties are required to exchange relevant evidence under legal Rules 35(3) and 35(6), and a Request for Admissions.

The Rule 35 notice demands disciplinary recordings, minutes of selection and governance meetings, correspondence with World Aquatics, coach accreditation records, media communications, monitoring reports from Doha, and the official withdrawal forms submitted to World Aquatics.

Many of these documents go directly to the disputed facts around the decision to withdraw the duet from the Olympic qualifier.

The Request for Admissions is even more revealing. If SSA admits the factual propositions put to it, its defence may narrow considerably. If it denies them, it will need to produce documentary evidence to support its version – evidence the athletes say has not yet been disclosed.

The discovery process may therefore determine the shape of the trial, and possibly its outcome. The case also raises broader governance concerns. The athletes argue that SSA’s repeated failures to comply with court processes reflect a deeper reluctance to engage transparently with the issues.

SSA has previously maintained that it acted within its rights and that the athletes’ own conduct justified their removal from competition. It has also argued that the disciplinary process, though overturned on appeal, was substantively fair.

But, based on the ongoing legal process, the federation has yet to provide a clear, documented explanation for the decision to withdraw the duet from the Olympic qualifier. With the matter expected to proceed to trial later this year, the discovery dispute may prove pivotal.

If the court grants the application to compel, SSA will be required to disclose internal records that could shed light on the decision‑making processes behind the Doha withdrawal, the handling of the disciplinary proceedings, and the federation’s subsequent public statements. DM

FACT BOX

The Athletes: Laura Strugnell and Jessica Hayes‑Hill, SA’s top‑ranked artistic swimming duet.
The Event: 2024 World Aquatics Championships in Doha – an Olympic qualification event.
The Dispute: The duet was withdrawn from competition following a disciplinary process that was later ruled to have been unfair.
Internal Findings: Two separate internal processes overturned SSA’s actions; neither decision has been reviewed or challenged.
The Claim: The athletes are suing Swimming South Africa for approximately R7.2-million.
SSA’s Conduct in Litigation: Repeated missed deadlines, a Notice of Bar, an upliftment application, wasted costs, and now non‑compliance with discovery and admissions.
Latest Development: The athletes have filed an application to compel SSA to hand over documents and respond to formal admissions.