The High Court set an expedited timetable for the case brought by the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School against Enoch Burke, while leaving the trial date and a separate question about Mr Burke’s position before the court unresolved.
In a direction delivered on 14 February 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said a trial in mid-March was the earliest realistic hearing. He listed four days for the trial, rejecting Mr Burke’s estimate that the case would take two days as “unrealistically optimistic”. The court had previously contemplated a hearing in April, with a possible trial in late March if the parties were ready.
Mr Burke opposed the earlier proposed directions because his “purported” dismissal from his teaching post was due to take effect on 21 April. He sought a trial as soon as possible after a Court of Appeal hearing scheduled for 16 February, saying his counterclaim sought relief concerning the legality of his dismissal. The direction records those as Mr Burke’s position and submissions; it does not determine the legality of the dismissal.
The judge ordered the school to deliver witness statements and make any discovery by 22 February, and Mr Burke to deliver his witness statements by 28 February. The school’s legal submissions were due by 3 March and Mr Burke’s by 10 March. The judge said witness statements could, subject to clarification, serve as the witnesses’ direct evidence. Cross-examination would still take place in the normal way.
The parties were to inform the Chancery Registrar on 1 March whether the directions had been complied with. Only after the witness statements and discovery were delivered would the court consider setting aside the four trial days and confirm a judge’s availability. The trial date would then be communicated to the parties. The direction did not itself set a date.
The judge expressly left for the trial judge the question of whether Mr Burke, described in the direction as a person in continuing contempt of court, could seek orders to protect his interests. The revised case-management directions did not decide that issue. The court also dispensed with a further hearing on the proposed directions, saying it was unnecessary in light of the parties’ positions.