The Supreme Court was told yesterday that attempts are still being made to resolve a dispute between Bishop John Magee of Cork and the State as to how €600,000 - the proceeds of sale of the former Christian Brothers' school in Youghal, Co Cork - should be distributed.
The school was part of a trust set up in the 1830s for "the Roman Catholic parishioners of Youghal" and rents and profits were to be used for "providing free education for the poor Roman Catholic male children" of the parish. It was leased to the Christian Brothers in 1857.
The trustees have been the successive bishops of Cork and parish priests of Youghal.
Following the sale of the school to the Minister for Education in 1997, a scheme was devised by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests so that the money from the sale could be used "strictly for educational use for all children attending primary and secondary schools in the parish of Youghal".
Bishop Magee has argued that education is now funded by the State and asked the High Court to approve the spending of the monies primarily to pay off a debt on a local parish hall which is now being used for educational purposes such as adult education, self improvement courses and arts and crafts.
Mr Justice Lavan, in a 2002 High Court decision, rejected the bishop's application and said he considered that schools in Youghal might need such aids as computers and visual aids.
He considered as more than reasonable the request by the Attorney General to the trustees that they investigate further the funding needs of local schools. Bishop Magee lodged an appeal against the High Court finding.
Yesterday, in the Supreme Court, Mr Thomas McCann SC, for Bishop Magee, said that they had hoped to settle the case but had been "somewhat unfortunate" in this matter.
They had made a suggestion that the monies be used to discharge the debt of Youghal parish. When the school had been sold, the commissioners had applied the monies to all schools in the parish including Church of Ireland and non-denominational schools.
Mr Justice Geoghegan asked whether it had been decided that the monies be distributed on an educational basis rather than a religious basis? Mr McCann said his clients were trying to argue that religion should enter into it as well as education.
Asked by Mr Justice Geoghegan why the appeal against the High Court finding could not go ahead, Mr McCann said it was because they did not want a row with the Attorney General and he asked for an adjournment for next term.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the court would favour an adjournment if Mr McCann could say an agreement was likely. Mr McCann said he was not certain if a meeting had been arranged between the parties but they wished to avoid further legal costs.
A barrister for the Attorney General said his client was disposed to attempt to reach a settlement if at all possible.