The Christian Brothers is pursuing a “cynical” legal strategy aimed at protecting its assets in a case where a man is suing the congregation for historical sex abuse, the High Court has been told.
Judgment in default was confirmed on Tuesday against 29 retired members of the congregation by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor in a case where Kenneth Grace is suing the congregation over his sexual abuse by Paul Hendrick, a retired member of the Christian Brothers.
The abuse occurred during the plaintiff’s time as a student in Westland Row CBS, Dublin, where Hendrick was a teacher and school principal. Hendrick is currently awaiting sentencing in the criminal courts, having pleaded guilty to the abuse of Mr Grace, who has waived his right to anonymity.
In the High Court case, the congregation has opted not to put forward a nominee to be sued on its behalf, which is what most religious congregations do in such cases. The decision has meant Mr Grace has to sue all members of the congregation from the time of the abuse. Some brothers have died since he initiated the proceedings four years ago.
Housing in Ireland is among the most expensive and most affordable in the EU. How does that happen?
Ceann comhairle election key task as 34th Dáil convenes for first time
Your EV questions answered: Am I better to drive my 13-year-old diesel until it dies than buy a new EV?
Workplace wrangles: Staying on the right side of your HR department, and more labrynthine aspects of employment law
In May, Mr Justice O’Connor granted judgment in default against 29 retired brothers unless they entered an appearance in the case. On Tuesday when the men’s names were called in court and there were no responses, the judge confirmed the orders. The brothers now become individually liable for such damages as the court may assess, and costs.
Mr Justice O’Connor also granted “unless orders” against a further 61 brothers, whose names were also read out in court, without response. These men now have until July 13th to enter an appearance.
Karl Finnegan BL, instructed by Frank Buttimer solicitors, was in court on behalf of the current head of the Christian Brothers, David Gibson, as well as for the former head of the congregation, Edmund Garvey. Both brothers are defendants in the case but are before the court in their personal capacity and not as representatives of the congregation.
Mr Finnegan has asked the court that it direct that the plaintiff enter into mediation with his clients, an application that is being resisted by Mr Grace, who is being represented by John Gordon SC, instructed by Coleman Legal.
Mr Gordon said the application was “fundamentally misconceived” and that there was no point in having mediation when 90 of the defendants in the case were not involved.
Why is it so difficult to sue the Christian Brothers?
The legal strategy being pursued by the congregation is designed to “shield the assets of the Christian Brothers from the plaintiff” and that is why Mr Grace is having to sue more than one hundred defendants individually. The only reason for this is the “cynical reason” of trying to shield the congregation’s assets, he said.
He said his side would be happy to enter mediation if the parties to the mediation represented “the congregation of the Christian Brothers”. Mr Justice O’Connor is to hear from both sides in relation to Mr Finnegan’s application on July 13th.
