High Court actions brought by the families of five children with special needs over allegations the youngsters were mentally and physically abused at the primary school they attended have been resolved.
The allegations were made by a now former staff member who alleged the children in the school's special autism unit were pulled and dragged "countless times" by two other staff members, namely another teacher and a Special Needs Assistant (SNA). The families sued over what they claimed was the school board's inadequate response to the allegations, which remain under investigation by authorities including the Child and Family Agency (CFA).
In judicial review proceedings against the board and the Minister for Education the families sought various reliefs including orders requiring the board to carry out an investigation into the allegations.
The also sought an order requiring the school to place the two staff members on administrative leave pending the outcome of the various probes.
The respondents opposed the action.
The cases, where neither the school nor any of the parties involved can be identified by order of the court, was listed for hearing this week before Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell.
They did not proceed after the court was told that the parties had reached an out of court arrangement.
The sides agreed that the children in question would be provided with an educational placement that did not involve the identified members of staff, pending the completion of an investigation by the Child and Family Agency, which was a notice party.
The sides could not agree on the question of who should pay the legal costs.
In a written ruling on the issue of costs the judge said he did not consider the proceedings moot, or to have been withdrawn.
The proceedings he said had been compromised when the applicant's proposal was accepted by the respondents, which did not involve the families obtaining an outcome that amounted to substantially what was sought in their actions.
The board, the judge said, has not made any concession in respect of its investigations nor has it agreed to place the two staff members on administrative leave.
While the school has been put to considerable expense in preparing for the hearings, the judge said that it seemed to him that the board could have formulated a proposal along the lines ultimately suggested by the applicants.
The judge, noting the parents' concerns, said the school's response was to fight the case rather than identify a resolution that met those concerns.
The board, represented by Joe Jeffers SC, he said was "in a difficult position" regarding the complaints.
The school would have been in a better position to defend an application for costs had it offered at the early stages to arrange to have the children educated without the involvement of the two staff until the various investigations are completed.
In the circumstances, the judge said he was making a modest award of costs in favour of the applicants.
The applicant in the first of the five cases, the judge said, should receive 25% of their legal costs from the school. Given the nature of duplication involved in the actions, the judge said he was making no order as to costs in the other four cases.
The families, represented by Derek Shortall SC, and Cormac Hynes Bl, brought proceedings over their concerns about their children's safety following the "whistleblowers" claims.
It is alleged that the SNA and teacher regularly shouted in the children's faces, grabbed them by the neck and chin, pushed them into sensory rooms by themselves, and forced the children to complete works while very distressed.
The whistleblower also claims that the staff members made directions that a child should be left in wet and soiled underwear, "because the child should know better."
The whistleblower said the SNA said that children should never be fully cleaned after a toilet accident.
The families claimed the allegations were brought to the school's attention in Spring 2023, but were only made aware of them by the school principal last October.
As well as seeking orders placing the two staff members on administrative leave, they also sought declarations including that the board had failed to comply with its own and the Minister's policies on investigations.
They further sought a declaration that the board placed the procedural rights of school staff above the rights of constitutional rights of vulnerable children in its care.
The claims were denied.
