The High Court directed the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School and Enoch Burke to bring disclosed errors in the school’s affidavit evidence to the attention of the judges before whom the affidavits had been used.
In a direction delivered on 10 February 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the school had told Mr Justice Dignam on 27 January that errors had been found in affidavit evidence filed on its behalf. The court had not received prior notice, and it appeared Mr Burke had not been notified either.
The Chancery Registrar then asked the school to explain which affidavits and passages contained errors, how the affidavits had been used, how the errors occurred, and when and how they were discovered. Four affidavits explaining the matter were received on 1 February.
Mr Justice O’Moore said the earlier affidavits had been relied on at hearings before Ms Justice Stack, Mr Justice Barrett and Mr Justice Dignam. The school said they had not been relied on in applications before Mr Justice O’Moore. He reviewed the affidavits opened in applications before him and said the erroneous affidavits appeared not to have been deployed there.
The judge said the appropriate course was for the errors to be brought to the attention of the three judges concerned. The school and Mr Burke were free to do so, provided there was a purpose in raising them. He said it was neither necessary nor appropriate, at that point, for the errors and the circumstances behind them to be listed before him. The direction did not determine what the errors were or their effect on any prior decision.
The direction also recounted that Mr Burke attended the Chancery List on 10 February without notice, relevant paperwork or, apparently, notice to the school’s solicitors. The judge said the list could not continue while Mr Burke behaved as he did, and that Mr Burke and one of his siblings had to be removed from the courtroom. The court ultimately dealt with all listed matters, with assistance from legal practitioners, An Garda Síochána and court staff.
The direction noted that a judgment delivered the previous day concerned Mr Burke’s application for a stay of proceedings and suggested directions for a trial shortly after Easter. It also remarked that the proceedings had absorbed substantial court time and resources, to the detriment of other litigants waiting for their cases.