Christian Brother asks to be removed as nominated representative in alleged sexual abuse litigation

A member of the Christian Brothers religious order has failed to have his name removed as a nominated representative defendant in a High Court action by a man who says he was sexually abused when he was a pupil at one of the order's schools.

The Brother who sought to be removed as a defendant is a member of the European province of the Congregation of Christian Brothers.

He says however he never agreed to be the order's nominated representative for these proceedings.

The alleged victim is suing the brother,the order itself, its province leader, the Minister for Education and the State for personal injuries.

The case arises out of what he says was sustained sexual abuse by a now deceased teacher between 1976 and 1978 while a pupil at the secondary school.

The brother who is the first defendant in the case is sued in his "representative capacity" of the order.

The Brother asked the High Court to remove him as first defendant as he says it is completely incorrect to say he agreed to be a nominee. He says it would be unjust to maintain him as a defendant particularly as the order itself and its province leader had been joined as defendants.

The alleged victim's lawyers claim the Brother's name was given as appropriate nominee when they (lawyers) rang the Christian Brothers congregation in October 2019. That claim is disputed.

Ms Justice Niamh Hyland, in refusing to allow the brother out of the case, said the factual controversy related to that phone call was not material to the issue she had to decide.

As a member of the Congregation of Christian Brothers, he is capable in principle, depending on the facts of the case, of being found vicariously liable for the acts of the alleged abuser, who was also a Christian Brother, she said.

No evidence had been given to show the defendant was not a member of the congregation at the time of the alleged abuse,she said. She could not therefore conclude that he was not a necessary defendant on that basis.

"It follows that his presence is necessary to allow the court to effectually settle all the questions involved in the matter."