Judgment in default entered against 130 Christian Brothers in sex abuse damages case
Congregation opting not to advance nominee for purposes of litigation for the past number of years
The High Court has granted judgment against 130 Christian Brothers in a case brought by a man who was sexually abused by a member of the congregation as a child.
The congregation’s decision not to provide a nominee for the purposes of the litigation necessitated the 130 members being joined to the case brought by survivor Thomas O’Callaghan, his lawyers told the court on Monday.
Manning, formerly of Donnybrook, Dublin 4, was jailed for three years.
In his court documents, O’Callaghan described Manning’s abuse, which dated back to the early 1970s, as “consistent and regular”.
O’Callaghan, of Ratoath, Co Meath, sued Manning over the abuse, seeking damages. He also brought his action against the Minister for Education and Edmund Garvey, a Christian Brothers provincial leader.
O’Callaghan’s solicitors had called on Garvey to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the congregation in the proceedings. He declined to do so, the court heard.
The Christian Brothers, like most religious congregations, is an unincorporated association, meaning there is no legal entity that can be directly sued by people taking it to court.
Most religious congregations put forward a nominee for the purposes of litigation, but for the past number of years the Christian Brothers have been opting not to do so for the purposes of claims of historical child sex abuse.
To progress their cases, litigants must serve a summons on all members of the congregation who were members at the time of the alleged assaults.
In 2023, the High Court made orders compelling Garvey to provide details of all living Christian Brothers who were in the congregation during 1972 and 1973, the time of the abuse. Some 130 members were subsequently joined to and served with the proceedings.
At Monday’s hearing, Conor Duff, barrister for O’Callaghan, told Judge Conor Dignam those members had not entered appearances in the proceedings.
In High Court actions, a defendant must file an appearance within a set time period if they intend to defend the action.
In the circumstances, Duff said he was seeking an order for judgment against the 130 members in default of appearance.
Dignam said he was satisfied to grant judgment against the members as sought. He directed that damages due to O’Callaghan arising from the judgments entered against the 130 members be assessed by the judge dealing with the substantive case.
