Senior Counsel for Kenneth Grace, who brought legal action against the Christian Brothers in 2019, has accused the organisation of having a "horrible, distasteful, despicable agenda," in the court proceedings, according to reporting by RTÉ Legal Affairs Correspondant Orla O'Donnell.

The plaintiff, Mr Grace, began his legal action in 2019 concerning physical, sexual and mental abuse he allegedly suffered at the hands of Paul Hendrick from 1980 to 1984.

Hendrick was the principal of the CBS School on Westland Row while Grace attended in the 1980s. Grace and his legal team allege a number of criminal acts of abuse occurred during Grace's time at the school.

Hendrick was sentenced to a three and a half year jail term earlier this month.

Edmund Garvey was the previous provincial leader of the Brothers, and is named as the second defendant in the case.

Garvey declined to represent the Brothers in the court proceedings, as did the current provincial leader David Gibson, though both were named in their individual capacities.

This has lead to an ongoing court battle as to who is responsible for representing the Brothers as an organisation in court, and whether a defendant who does not wish to represent an organisation may decline to do so in this context.

Grace's legal counsel, John Gordon, has accused the Christian Brothers of "playing ducks and drakes with the legal system," attempting to stall court proceedings and place roadblocks to judgement by refusing to name an individual to represent the Brothers as an organisation in the court proceedings.

In 2021, Justice Niamh Hyland ruled that Garvey could not be compelled to represent in an official capacity against his will, but that the names of all members of the Brothers during the relevant period must be disclosed.

As a result, Grace has been forced to address his legal action to each individual who was a member of the Brothers during the period of the alleged abuse.

This would substantially complicate the court case and dramatically increase the cost of legal counsel on Grace's behalf.

“There is just the possibility here,” Hot Press editor Niall Stokes says, “that Justice Tony O'Connor will force the Christian Brothers to name someone to represent the organisation, rather than allowing them to give the victim the runaround, in the way they have so far in this case. No matter what angle you look at it from, their behaviour here is despicable."

Justice Tony O'Connor refused an application by Barrister Karl Finnegan, who is representing Garvey and Hendrick in an individual capacity, to compel both parties into settlement earlier today.

Hiding Assets

The attempt to sidestep naming an official representative complicates multiple factors, argue both Gordon and Stokes.

One of the impacts is that there is no one currently in a position to offer Grace an apology on behalf of the organisation, says Gordon.

"There is no one to apologise to Kenneth Grace, and that is a shocking state of affairs in 2023," he said.

The court also heard from Grace's legal team there was a "systemic effort" to divest assets before a verdict is reached, an allegation that Garvey and Hendrick's legal representation strongly refute.

Stokes argues this latest development is part of a clear pattern of evasion by religious organisations.

What the case underlines, however, is that there is a pressing need for the State to take a very close look at all of the assets that are currently in the possession of religious orders - or indeed were until recently.

"We have seen in relation to the National Maternity Hospital, and the land on which it was - or is - proposed to build it, that there is a concerted effort on the part of the Sisters of Charity, as with religious orders in general, to shift ownership of buildings and land into separate vehicles that then claim charitable status.

“There is no good reason why this kind of transfer should automatically be given the green light, bearing in mind the extent to which the State has often funded building, and improvements, on these sites. And also in light of the extent to which many religious orders have still not dealt properly with, or made financial settlements in relation to, legacy issues of abuse, incarceration, slave labour - or any of the other scandals that have finally come to light over the past few decades.

“Once the transfer of ownership has taken place, the assets of a particular religious order can no longer be touched and their financial worth is not therefore available to meet legal bills, make reparations or pay victims. Which will inevitably mean the State having to cover some or all of those costs in what may still be innumerable cases.

“To avoid that scenario, it may be necessary for the State to place an embargo on any further transactions of this kind, to create the time and space in which to carry out a complete review of all land and property holdings that are currently in the hands of religious orders and interests and to decide the basis - if any - under which the transfer of assets might be potentially allowable and whether charitable status is an appropriate standing for whatever entities take control of the assets.”