The High Court has allowed two defendants to amend their defence in a claim alleging historical sexual abuse at a De La Salle school in Dundalk, Co Louth. The court ruled that the proposed amendments were necessary to determine the issues between the parties and would not unduly delay their resolution. It did not decide the underlying abuse claim or any proposed application to dismiss it.
Pat Clarke’s claim seeks damages for alleged abuse by the third named defendant when Mr Clarke was a student, approximately five or six decades ago. The first, second, fourth and fifth defendants are sued as entities responsible for the school’s control and as vicariously liable for the third defendant’s alleged acts.
The application was brought for the second and third defendants. They sought to add pleas concerning alleged prejudice from another abuser and the loss or non-preservation of counselling notes; pleas under the Civil Liability Act relating to the death of another alleged abuser, which they said might reduce or extinguish the claim; and pleas under section 26 of the 2004 Act and concerning abuse of process. They also sought to reserve a right to apply to dismiss the proceedings in light of the recent developments.
The application followed additional documents supplied by the plaintiff, including Marriage Tribunal records of evidence given in 2011/12 referring to another abuser, then deceased, and a further affidavit of discovery addressing the destruction of counselling notes. The judgment records that, in replies to particulars, the plaintiff had not disclosed the tribunal evidence and had said he was not physically or sexually abused by anyone else. The defendants acknowledged that their own discovery included a 2012 tribunal letter to Gardaí, copied to the De La Salle Order, suggesting the plaintiff had referred to abuse by another person whom he declined to identify. They said they had not appreciated the document’s significance until their discovery was delivered.
A jury had been impanelled in November 2021, but the trial did not proceed because of court resource constraints. The judge noted that the defendants had not been on notice of all relevant facts when they first filed their pleas. She accepted that the matters were central to the dispute and that the delay could have been avoided had consent to the amendments been given.
The order grants leave to amend the defence. The judgment does not determine whether the new pleas succeed, whether the claim should be dismissed, or the merits of the abuse allegations.