The High Court has ordered Enoch Burke to pay the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School’s costs for two motions and fixed at €23,800 the fines accrued by 1 March 2023 for his continued breach of a court order.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore dealt with the costs of Burke’s unsuccessful application to stay the proceedings, the costs of the school’s motion concerning his continuing contempt, and a review of measures addressing that contempt.
The judge said Burke had obtained no relief from his stay application and should pay the school’s costs. He also awarded the school its costs of bringing the contempt motion, finding it had reasonably felt obliged to act after Burke breached an order made by Mr Justice Barrett. The judge rejected Burke’s arguments that religious freedom, alleged problems with school evidence, or the wider importance of the case justified refusing costs. The amount of costs is to be assessed by an independent costs adjudicator.
The judgment recorded that the school’s evidence was that Burke had breached the order on each day since fines were imposed on 26 January, except when the school was closed or he was attending court. Burke did not dispute continuing to report for work. The judge said the accounts from Burke and the school principal about the effects of his presence did not need to be resolved for the decision: the breach had continued at least until 1 March.
The court had imposed a €700 daily fine on 26 January, payable until Burke purged his contempt or the order was varied. The order had not been varied, and the Court of Appeal had upheld Mr Justice Barrett’s decision on 7 March. The judge fixed the amount due through 1 March at €23,800 and directed payment by 4pm on 23 March. He did not increase the daily fine. It would continue to accrue until the order was materially varied or set aside, or Burke purged his contempt.
From 4pm on 23 March, the school could take steps to enforce the fines. The judge identified possible sequestration of assets for collection as distinct from an earlier refused application to use sequestration as a coercive measure. A further review date was to be notified, when compliance from 2 March onwards would be considered.
The judgment also addressed Burke’s claim that school affidavits contained false statements. The judge said it was for the judges who made the relevant orders to consider any application to revisit them, and that the issue did not change his decisions on costs or the fines.