Grace v Hendrick & Anor (Approved) [2021] IEHC 320 (11 May 2021)
The court held that O.15 r.9 RSC does not empower it to direct an unwilling defendant to act as a representative defendant. However, the court has inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of the names and addresses of members of an unincorporated association (here, the Christian Brothers) for the purpose of joining them as defendants, even absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, where the defendant is a concurrent wrongdoer and the interests of justice require it. The plaintiff had no other means to obtain the information, and without it would be prejudiced in prosecuting his claim and potentially in recovering any judgment. The refusal of the second named defendant to provide the...
- Citation
- [2021] IEHC 320
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenneth Grace; First Named Defendant: Paul Hendrick; Second Named Defendant: Edmund Garvey
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 11 May 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injury / Tort (sexual Assault, Vicarious Liability) / Interlocutory Motion for Disclosure of Names and Addresses of Potential Defendants
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's motion for disclosure of names and addresses of members of the Congregation of Christian Brothers during the relevant period granted under the court's inherent jurisdiction; motion for representative defendant under O.15 r.9 RSC refused.
- Legal Topics
- Representative Actions, Inherent Jurisdiction, Norwich Pharmacal Orders, Disclosure of Identity of Wrongdoers, Vicarious Liability of Unincorporated Associations, Class Actions, Discovery Against Concurrent Wrongdoers
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kenneth Grace
Plaintiff
Paul Hendrick
First Named Defendant
Edmund Garvey
Second Named Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Tort (sexual Assault, Vicarious Liability) / Interlocutory Motion for Disclosure of Names and Addresses of Potential Defendants
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can order a defendant to act as a representative defendant under O.15 r.9 RSC without consent
- 2 Whether the court can order disclosure of names and addresses of members of an unincorporated association (Christian Brothers) for the purpose of joining them as defendants
- 3 Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court permits such disclosure absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that O.15 r.9 RSC does not empower it to direct an unwilling defendant to act as a representative defendant. However, the court has inherent jurisdiction to order disclosure of the names and addresses of members of an unincorporated association (here, the Christian Brothers) for the purpose of joining them as defendants, even absent prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, where the defendant is a concurrent wrongdoer and the interests of justice require it. The plaintiff had no other means to obtain the information, and without it would be prejudiced in prosecuting his claim and potentially in recovering any judgment. The refusal of the second named defendant to provide the...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's motion for disclosure of names and addresses of members of the Congregation of Christian Brothers during the relevant period granted under the court's inherent jurisdiction; motion for representative defendant under O.15 r.9 RSC refused.
Orders
- Order refusing to direct or authorise the second named defendant to act as representative defendant under O.15 r.9 RSC.
- Order directing the second named defendant to disclose the full names and addresses of persons who were members of the Congregation of Christian Brothers in Ireland during the period from 1 August 1979 to 31 December 1984 and who are currently members.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment