The Christian Brothers have been ordered by the High Court to disclose the names and addresses of dozens of former members to seven alleged abuse victims seeking to sue the congregation for damages.
The plaintiffs had to seek the orders due to a controversial legal strategy under which the religious community refuses to appoint a nominee to act as a defendant in such lawsuits.
Because the Christian Brothers is an unincorporated association, if it does not provide a nominee, it cannot be sued.
The only way around this is to sue all members at the time the abuse is alleged to have occurred, under the doctrine of vicarious liability.
However, this is not straightforward as the congregation has also refused to divulge the names and addresses of members during the relevant periods without a court order.
The applicants, all represented by Dublin law firm Coleman Legal, sought orders requiring the release of the names and addresses of members of the congregation at specific times relevant to each case.
In one of the cases, relating to allegations of abuse at a Dublin primary school, details were sought of all members between September, 1986 and June, 1987.
The orders were granted by Mr Justice Michael Twomey after he heard the leader of the organisation’s European province, Brother David Gibson, refused to act as nominee.
An affidavit filed by solicitor Patrick Coleman also outlined correspondence in which Brother Gibson said he was not in a position to provide addresses for former brothers who had left the congregation as no forwarding addresses were retained.
Barrister Andrew Nugent, for the seven plaintiffs, said Brother Gibson was uniquely placed to provide information due to his position.
He said the plaintiffs had no other means of getting the details sought.
Barrister Isabelle Aylmer, representing Brother Gibson, said her client was neither consenting nor objecting.
She said the only reason for this was because “it is personal information we cannot release without a court order”.
Mr Justice Twomey said it was appropriate to make the orders sought, but refused to award the costs of the applications to the plaintiffs, instead reserving them until the cases are resolved.
The judge said Brother Gibson’s approach to the proceedings was “reasonable in that there is not an obligation upon him and his counsel is neither objecting nor consenting to the application”.
In a statement issued to The Herald earlier this year, Brother Gibson stood over the stance he had taken.
The controversial strategy was first adopted under Brother Gibson’s predecessor, Edmund Garvey, who retired as province leader in 2022.
It has been criticised by survivors and their lawyers as being obstructive and a mechanism to dissuade victims from seeking compensation.
Its use was highlighted in the case of Ken Grace, who received a public apology and a settlement in 2023 over abuse he suffered at the hands of Paul Hendrick, a former principal of Westland Row CBS in Dublin.
Mr Grace was forced to sue 120 brothers individually and his case took four-and-ahalf years and 25 court appearances before it was resolved.