The High Court has refused an application to replace seven individual plaintiffs with the Board of Management of Clonkeen College in proceedings over playing fields used by the school.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Stewart on 27 March 2018, addressed who could pursue the proceedings. It did not decide the underlying dispute about the proposed sale of part of the lands or the plaintiffs’ proprietary estoppel claim.
The defendants had contracted to sell part of the lands at Clonkeen College, which the judgment says had been used as playing fields since the school was founded. The seven plaintiffs opposed the sale, relying on alleged representations made around September 2006 that the Board of Management could use the fields while the school continued to operate. The judgment says the lands were held by trustees for the Congregation of Christian Brothers and were covered by a five-year sporting-use licence due to expire in August 2018. The licence had been granted to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, identified as the school’s owner and patron.
The plaintiffs applied under Order 15, rule 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts to change the case title so the Board of Management would be the plaintiff. They said the named individuals had comprised the Board when proceedings began and that the defendants knew the Board was bringing the case. The defendants opposed the change.
Justice Stewart said the evidence did not establish that the individuals had been named through a genuine mistake. The plaintiffs’ affidavit said it “may have been more appropriate” to name the Board, but did not explain how a mistake occurred. The court considered that the application instead appeared to involve a choice to sue in the individuals’ names, rather than an error in the name of the intended plaintiff.
The judge also noted that the application came four days before the scheduled trial, that the Board had not produced a recorded decision consenting to join the case and take on its liabilities, and that substituting it would effectively amount to fresh proceedings. She found the proposed change would prejudice the defendants and said the interests of justice favoured refusing it at that late stage.
The application was refused. The ruling made no determination of the merits of the dispute over the land or the alleged representations.