The High Court has allowed the Board of Management (BOM) of Clonkeen College to join an ongoing land dispute as a co-plaintiff, while leaving the underlying legal and factual questions for a plenary hearing.
In a ruling delivered on 8 May 2018, Ms Justice Stewart granted the existing plaintiffs’ application under Order 15, rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The order adds the BOM from the date of the order. It does not remove the seven existing plaintiffs or determine the defendants’ separate application to strike out their claim.
The plaintiffs said the BOM was needed for the court to resolve the issues in the case. They relied on an alleged 2006 representation by the school’s then-patron, the Christian Brothers, and said the BOM had made decisions in reliance on it. The defendants argued that the BOM lacked capacity to pursue litigation against its patron’s wishes, had not validly consented to joinder, and was not a necessary party. They also raised delay, prejudice and abuse-of-process objections.
The judge said it remained unclear whether the patron’s supervisory role could restrict the BOM’s statutory power to sue, or whether the BOM could hold the alleged interest in school property. Those questions, including whether the alleged representation remains binding, are for the plenary hearing. The ruling does not find that a representation was made or that any property right exists.
The court had previously refused, in a ruling dated 27 March 2018, an application to substitute the BOM for the current plaintiffs. Justice Stewart said the evidence and application now before her presented a different situation. She found that adding the BOM would not introduce a new cause of action and that the defendants would not be significantly prejudiced, noting that the facts and relief sought were the same.
A late affidavit from Sharon Delaney, an employee of Beauchamps Solicitors whose role was not specified, was first accepted provisionally and then admitted into evidence. It purported to exhibit the BOM’s consent. At this stage, the judge was satisfied there was prima facie evidence of consent, while noting that the matter could be examined at the plenary hearing and that any errors could be addressed through costs.
The judge criticised both sides’ conduct and the delay in bringing the applications. She said the existing plaintiffs remain potentially liable for costs; the joinder order does not discharge them. The judgment records that the plenary hearing, due to begin in mid-March, had been delayed almost two months, with the expiry of a licence and a presumed sale of playing fields expected in September 2018.