Has the Christian Brothers’ ‘grossly unfair’ legal strategy backfired?
A judge has criticized the Christian Brothers for using an obstructive legal strategy in child sex abuse cases, which forces victims to sue individual members rather than the organization. This approach is widely viewed as an attempt to protect the congregation's assets by wearing down claimants.
Why it matters
The strategy raises significant ethical and legal questions regarding accountability for institutional abuse and the barriers victims face in seeking justice.
T he controversial legal strategy adopted by the Christian Brothers in claims for damages taken by victims may have backfired.
A legal ruling this week means hundreds of former brothers now find themselves about to be publicly named regarding legal claims for damages for child sex abuse crimes they had no knowledge of.
The congregation has not said why it has adopted its highly obstructive strategy, but one of the State’s most senior judges expressed the belief last week it was intended to protect the congregation’s assets – which remain considerable.
Lawyers representing claimants have long believed that the congregation is making it so time-consuming, difficult and expensive to take a case for damages in the hope that claimants will be inclined to settle for lower amounts, while those considering making claims will be put off doing so.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in