Merriman v Burke & ors [2020] IEHC 118 (04 February 2020)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JOHN BURKE, THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS, IRELAND AND THE

1. This is an application under Order 15, rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (“RSC”)

to direct the removal of the first defendant. It is brought in circumstances where the

plaintiff claims damages for personal injury that he alleges were sustained by sexual

abuse during the years 1976-1978 while a pupil at CBS Crumlin school, Dublin 12. He has

issued a personal injury summons against various defendants, including John Burke (the

“first defendant”), a member of the Congregation of Christian Brothers.

2. At paragraph 2 of the Amended Personal Injury Summons, it is stated that John Burke is

sued in his capacity as the agreed nominated representative of the Christian Brothers, as

the person in whose care CBS Crumlin School was entrusted and the person responsible

at law for the supervision of all ecclesiastical and governance matters within the school,

and for the acts of a teacher, namely Brother Bowyers (now deceased) who is alleged to

3. Frank Buttimer Solicitors entered an appearance for the first defendant on 30th May 2018

in his personal capacity. A motion was brought on 3rd July 2019 to remove the first

defendant on the basis that, as averred to by Mr. Burke in his affidavit of 21st June 2019,

it is completely incorrect that he is the agreed nominated representative of the Christian

Brothers. He agrees that he is a member of the European province of the Congregation of

Christian Brothers but says that he never nominated himself nor agreed to be the

nominated representative on behalf of the Congregation of Christian Brothers in the

within proceedings. He further says that he never had any involvement in a personal

capacity with CBS Crumlin school and never taught there at any time. He says he made

this clear in pre-litigation correspondence with the solicitors for the plaintiff and the

Personal Injuries Assessment Board. He notes that subsequent to the proceedings issuing,

two additional defendants were joined, being the Congregation of Christian Brothers and

Edmund Garvey, the Province Leader of the Congregation of Christian Brothers. In

submissions made at the hearing of the motion on 17 February 2020, counsel for the first

defendant submitted in addition that he was not a necessary party to maintain, that the

plaintiff had joined the two additional defendants identified above and that it would be

4. By way of replying affidavit of Norman Spicer, solicitor, sworn 31st October 2019 on

behalf of the plaintiff, he avers that his firm made extensive inquiries in relation to the

legal nominee of the Congregation of Christian Brothers. He says that a phone call was

made to the head office of the Christian Brothers, being the European Province Centre,

Griffith Avenue, Marino, Dublin 9 on 11th December 2017, to ascertain the legal nominee

(if any) for the purpose of issuing the within proceedings. He avers that during that phone

call, Brother John Burke, the first defendant, was identified as the appropriate legal

nominee and that prior to that phone call, the solicitors for the plaintiff were not aware of

Mr. Burke prior to the call and only became aware of him as a result of the call.

5. There was considerable dispute on affidavit between the parties as to that phone call,

with the first defendant criticising the plaintiff for not indicating the identity of the person

in head office who provided his name and for failing to have any note of the conversation.

6. In my view, the factual controversies relating to that call are not material to the issue to

be decided. Taking the plaintiff’s case at its highest, and assuming that Mr. Burke’s name

was indeed provided during the call of 11th December 2017 as the agreed nominated

representative of the Congregation of the Christian Brothers, it has been clear to the

plaintiff since before these proceedings were instituted that the first defendant is not the

agreed nominated representative of the Christian Brothers. There is clearly no agreement

either by him to act, or by the Christian Brothers for him to so act.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the

application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be

just, order that the names of any parties improperly joined, whether as plaintiffs or

as defendants, be struck out and that the names of any parties, whether plaintiffs

or defendants, who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court

may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to

adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter, be

8. As noted in Raymond & ors. v. Moyles & ors. [2017] IEHC 688, Judgment of Baker J. of

10 November 2017, the jurisdiction under Order 15, rule 13 was explained by Henchy J.

giving the judgment of the Supreme Court in Fuller v. Dublin County Council & Anor

[1976] IR 20, where the Court allowed the application of the second defendant that it be

discharged from the action as its presence in the proceedings was not justifiable for the

proper prosecution of the claim. In Fuller, an application was made by a defendant, the

Minister for Local Government, for an order pursuant to O. 15, rule 13, striking him out of

the proceedings on the ground that he had been improperly joined. Henchy J. observed

that the answer to the question whether the Minister may properly be joined as a

defendant will depend on the particular illegality alleged (page 27). In that case, it was

alleged that a CPO was unlawful because the County Council, having granted a planning

permission in respect of the property compulsorily acquired, were estopped or debarred

from acquiring it compulsorily so the CPO as confirmed by the Minister was invalid.

Henchy J. noted that the test was whether the presence of the Minister as a defendant

was justifiable by the plaintiffs as necessary for the proper prosecution of their claim. It

was held that the fact that the Minister had confirmed the CPO was merely a consequence

and not a cause of the illegality alleged. Irrespective of whose standpoint one considered

the question from, the participation of the Minister as a party could not be said to be

necessary (page 28). Accordingly, the Minister was struck out as a defendant.

9. In Raymond, Baker J. noted that the jurisdiction under O.15, r.13, by which a court may

remove a party “improperly” joined or a party who was not a necessary party, was not

one engaged in the case before her, in that the defendants seeking to be removed might

not be true contracting parties but could not be said not to be necessary parties to the

claim as pleaded. She observed that the provisions of O.15 were more applicable to a

case where it could be readily ascertained from the proceedings from the nature of the

relief claimed or the statutory or other basis of that relief that a party is not a necessary

10. To decide upon this application, it is necessary to consider the context in which the first

defendant has been identified as a defendant. The plaintiff does not make the case that

the first defendant was involved in the abuse. Rather the plaintiff seeks to join him as a

way of imposing liability on the Congregation of the Christian Brothers. Although neither

the Personal Injury Summons nor the Amended version of it pleads vicarious liability on

the part of the Congregation or the first defendant (although same is explicitly pleaded

against the Minister for Education and Ireland and the Attorney General, the second and

third defendants), that is presumably the basis upon which the plaintiff seeks to impose

liability. That may be seen from the description of the first defendant referred to above,

being “the person in whose care CBS Crumlin School was entrusted and the person

responsible at law for the supervision of all ecclesiastical and governance matters within

the school, and for the acts of … Brother Bowyers”. Similar (though not identical) pleas

are made against the Congregation and Edmund Garvey in the Amended Summons.

11. The question as to the liability of a religious order for acts of its congregation is one that

has recently been considered in some detail by the Supreme Court in Hickey v. McGowan

and Cosgrove [2017] 2 IR 196. There, the plaintiff alleged that he been sexually abused

by the second defendant, a teacher in a national school run by the Marist Order. The first

defendant was the head of the Marist Order and was sued as being vicariously liable for

the acts of the second defendant. It was also separately contended that he was a

representative defendant. The defence of the first defendant was straightforward. It was

that members of an unincorporated association, such as the Marist Order, were not

12. The Supreme Court found that a party running a school could be vicariously liable for a

teacher who sexually assaulted a child if there was sufficient evidence that such a party

was in control of the activities of such a teacher; that religious orders were

unincorporated associations, lacking in legal personality and therefore not capable of

suing or being sued; that the members of an order could be vicariously liable for acts of

abuse that were sufficiently closely connected to the object and mission of the order; that

members of unincorporated associations who were members at the time of the tortious

acts being committed by another member could be liable for such tortious acts but

members who joined afterwards could not; that as the first defendant did not plead or

adduce any evidence that he was not a member of the religious order at the time of

occurrence of the abuse of the plaintiff, the imposition of vicarious liability on him for the

acts of the second defendant was justified. However, such liability was personal to the

first defendant and there was no basis to conclude that the first defendant was sued in a

13. Considering the question as to the first defendant’s vicarious liability for the acts of the

“Therefore, the plaintiff has in my view established that he was abused by the

second defendant who was a member of the Marist Order and that he has pleaded

that the first defendant is a member of the Marist Order and indeed a provincial and

this is not denied. It has neither been pleaded nor proved by the second defendant

that he was not a member during the period of the wrongdoing established in this

case. That in my view is just enough to justify judgment against the first defendant,

although it remains to be seen what benefit such judgment against the individual

will be to the plaintiff. This might appear a narrow and somewhat technical

approach, which nevertheless has decisive consequences in this case. After all, the

first defendant may have been able to prove that he was not a member of the

Order at the relevant time. However, he neither sought to plead, or prove, such a

state of affairs. Instead he took up a position – that members of an unincorporated

association were not vicariously liable for any of the acts of another member –

14. Discussing the question as to which members of an order may potentially be vicariously

“The paragraph goes on to assert, correctly in my view, that any current member of

the association is not vicariously liable for acts of a member prior to the defendant

becoming a member of the association. In my view, the members for the time

being at the time the act is committed are liable rather than the members, for

example at the time the proceedings are commenced” (paragraph 57).

15. Discussing the representative defendant, O’Donnell J. notes:

“Order 15, r. 9 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 does permit a person to

sue, or be sued, on behalf of all persons having the same interest in the cause of

matter. However, Kennedy C.J. stated bluntly in Moore & Ors. v. Attorney-General

and Others [1930] I.R. 471 at p. 499, that the almost identical provisions of Order

SVI, r. IX of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Ir.) 1905 did not apply to an action in

tort. I am not sure that that is necessarily correct in all circumstances and in

particular where a claim is made for the same vicarious liability against a number of

parties (something that might not have been conceived possible in 1930). In any

event I think that no sufficient attempt was made here to endorse the plenary

summons with a claim that the first defendant was sued in a representative

capacity, or to identify the persons alleged to be represented. The appropriate

course in such a case is to write to the order or provincial threatening to sue all

individual members of the order unless a defendant is nominated. If that course is

not taken, then all members who can be identified can be joined as defendants. If

however any judgment is obtained against those defendants, the judgments are

individual and whether or not such judgments will be met by insurance, or from

assets which may be held for the benefit of the order more generally, may depend

upon the terms of the insurance, and indeed the terms upon which such assets are

held, and perhaps the willingness and ability of the order to make funds available to

16. In my view, the following principles flow from the decision in Hickey:

There is some doubt as to whether a plaintiff is entitled to sue one person as the

nominated representative of a larger group in respect of a claim in tort, despite the

A religious order is not usually a company or other legal entity. It cannot be

identified as a defendant to proceedings unless it is a recognised legal entity.

If an order is not a recognised legal entity, and a plaintiff seeks to impose vicarious

liability on a religious order for the acts of a member of the order, it must therefore

do so by identifying the members of the order and suing them individually unless a

defendant is nominated who may be sued on behalf of identified members of the

Whether sued individually by naming each as defendants, or whether there is a

nominated representative who can be sued on behalf of identified members, the

members of the order must have been members at the time at which the

17. The plaintiff objected to the application on the basis, inter alia, that any objection as to

the capacity in which the first defendant was sued ought to have been taken in the

defence (which has not yet been filed) and that the motion ought not to have been

brought. However, Order 15, rule 14 says that any application pursuant to same can be

brought at any time before trial. I do not therefore consider this objection well founded.

18. In respect of the substantive issue, the plaintiff says that the first defendant was the

person identified by the head office of the Christian Brothers, that the solicitors for the

first defendant have consistently refused to nominate who they say is the correct legal

nominee of the Christian Brothers and that if the relief sought is granted, it will be

necessary to name all members of the Congregation thus incurring unnecessary time and

19. The first defendant contests the circumstances in which his name was provided by the

office, says he is not the agreed representative of the Congregation and says that he

never had any personal involvement in the school and never taught in it. He says that

20. Here, the first defendant has been sued in a representative capacity rather than as an

individual defendant having vicarious liability for the acts of Brother Bowyers, although it

is pleaded that he is responsible at law, inter alia, for the acts of Brother Bowyers. The

Amended Personal Injuries Summons identifies him as being “the agreed nominated

representative of the Christian Brothers”. As noted above, the first defendant consistently

denies he is a representative of the Christian Brothers. He has not been nominated by the

Christian Brothers and cannot be described as the agreed nominated representative. The

circumstances in which his name was provided to the plaintiff’s solicitors, even accepting

all the averments of the plaintiff in this respect and taking his case at its height, do not

amount to a nomination by the Brothers. Nor has there been any attempt by the plaintiff

to identify those persons whom he is alleged to represent i.e. by naming all members of

the Congregation either now or at the time of the alleged abuse. Counsel for the first

defendant submits there is no obligation to identify a nominated representative. That

submission appears correct to me, though such a decision may have implications as to

what steps a plaintiff will take in respect of the conduct of the proceedings, as discussed

21. In those circumstances, even if there is an entitlement to sue a person as a

representative defendant on behalf of all members of the Congregation (and there is

some considerable doubt about this in the case of an action based on tort given the

existence of the Supreme Court decision in Moore v Attorney General & Ors. (No. 3)

[1930] I.R 471), given (a) the lack of agreement on the part of the first defendant and

the Congregation and (b) the failure to identify the members of the Congregation whom

the first defendant represents, the first defendant is not a representative defendant being

sued in an agreed representative capacity on behalf of other defendants. This has

obvious, and undesirable, implications for the plaintiff in these proceedings.

22. The findings in Hickey have established that the first defendant, either individually or with

other members of the Congregation, can be sued on the basis he is vicariously liable for

the acts of Brother Bowyers qua member of the Congregation. In the affidavit grounding

this motion, the first defendant accepts he is a member of the European Province of the

Congregation of Christian Brothers (paragraph 4). In Hickey, the defendant sued as being

vicariously liable was the Provincial of the order. Here, the first defendant is not alleged to

have held any position of responsibility with the Congregation. In the affidavit grounding

the motion, the first defendant avers at paragraph 5 that he never had any involvement

in a personal capacity with CBS Crumlin school, the scene of alleged abuse, and never

taught there at any time. It will be a matter for the trial judge as to how those factors

impact on the liability of the first defendant. However, the plaintiff has not sued the first

defendant on this basis but rather on a representative basis (save for the somewhat

oblique reference in the Amended Personal Injuries Summons to the first defendant being

23. This situation necessitates a closer look at the purpose of O.15, r. 13. Is it to allow the

Court, inter alia, to strike out a defendant where the description of that defendant is

misconceived such that the relief sought by the plaintiff (or at least the majority of that

relief) against that defendant cannot be granted? This is one reading of Fuller, where

Henchy J. said that “whether the Minister may properly be joined as a defendant will

depend on the particular illegality alleged”. Or should O.15 r.13 be interpreted such that it

should only be used to exclude parties whom, even if pleadings were amended, could not

in the circumstances of the case, ever be necessary to enable the court to adjudicate

upon the questions before it? The quote from Fuller above may provide some assistance.

It refers to “the particular illegality alleged”. Here, the “particular illegality” alleged is the

sexual abuse of the plaintiff. The first defendant, being a member of the Congregation is

thus capable in principle (depending of course on the facts of this case) of being found

vicariously liable for the acts of another member of the Congregation. It may be of course

that the first defendant may adduce evidence to show he was not a member of the

Congregation at the relevant time. However, no evidence has been adduced to that effect

and I cannot therefore conclude that he is not a necessary defendant on that basis. It

follows that his presence is necessary to allow the court to effectually settle all the

24. In my view, similarly to the position in Raymond, it can be readily ascertained from the

nature of the relief claimed that the first defendant is a necessary party in the true sense

to the proceedings. In those circumstances it is just that he should remain as a

defendant. Accordingly, I am of the view that to allow the Court effectually and

completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in this matter, it is

necessary that I refuse the application to remove the first defendant. For the sake of

completeness, I should add that the plaintiff is at risk of being refused any relief as

against the first defendant (assuming the plaintiff otherwise makes out a case against the

first defendant) if the capacity in which he has been sued remains unchanged given my

findings above that he is not the agreed nominated representative of the Christian

25. I wish to emphasise that I am not ruling on the sufficiency of any one defendant when

seeking to establish vicarious liability. The plaintiff may wish to consider, having regard to

the dicta in Hickey, contacting the Congregation to seek consent to the identification of a

nominated representative and the joinder of additional appropriate members of the

Congregation should same not be forthcoming. That is entirely a matter for him.

26. Finally, I should add that, if the court ultimately hearing this case is charged with deciding

whether the first defendant is vicariously liable, the question as to whether he was a

member of the Brothers at the time of the alleged abuse will require to be decided by the

trial judge. The comments of O’Donnell J. at paragraph 69 of Hickey, albeit in the context

of the application of s. 35(1)(ii) of the Civil Liability Act, may be of relevance in this

“It follows from all the foregoing that in theory all members of the Marist Order, at

least those who are members at the time of the alleged abuse, are vicariously

liable, but only the first defendant has been sued. There was some discussion

therefore as to whether s.35(1)(i) (of the Civil Liability Act) applied in this context

as well. I do not necessarily accept that it would be appropriate to permit a party

such as the first defendant in this case to rely on the failure of the plaintiff to sue

other members of a religious order when knowledge as to the identity of such

members was something much more clearly within the power and control of the

27. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in this judgment, I refuse the relief sought in the

Notice of Motion.

Result: Application refused on basis first defendant necessary to allow court to settle questions in the matter

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Merriman v Burke & ors [2020] IEHC 118 (04 February 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2020/2020IEHC118.html Cite as: [2020] IEHC 118

High Court of Ireland Decisions