The High Court has ordered Enoch Burke to pay the defendants’ costs of defending his application for an interlocutory injunction, except for costs relating to a WhatsApp recording sought as evidence in a disciplinary appeal.
In a costs ruling delivered on 22 March 2024, Mr Justice Dignam said the defendants were entitled to their costs for contesting the injunction on the ground of alleged bias. The order followed his earlier refusal of the injunction. It does not determine any appeal against that substantive decision.
Burke had sought to stop a Disciplinary Appeal Panel hearing his appeal against his employer’s decision to dismiss him. His application initially relied on two grounds: an allegation that a panel member should have recused himself, and the failure to obtain and provide a recording attached to a WhatsApp exchange. The injunction hearing proceeded only on the bias allegation; Burke withdrew the recording ground shortly before the hearing after the panel obtained and provided the material.
The judge said the defendants were entirely successful in opposing the injunction on the bias ground. Burke’s submissions that the substantive judgment was wrong and rested on a lie concerned the merits of that decision, the judge said, and did not affect the costs ruling. He said those matters were for any appeal Burke might bring.
The court treated the recording issue separately. Burke had asked the panel to obtain the recording before the scheduled appeal hearing and warned that he might seek an injunction if the hearing was not postponed while the issue was addressed. The recording was obtained and provided only after the High Court proceedings began. The defendants later accepted that it was potentially relevant evidence.
The judge concluded that the defendants should not recover their costs for dealing with that aspect of the application. He said the panel had been proceeding with the hearing before resolving whether the material would be provided, and that the issue was resolved after proceedings were initiated. Burke did not seek his own costs.
The court dismissed the injunction application and ordered Burke to pay the defendants’ costs of defending it on the bias ground, excluding costs relating to the WhatsApp recording issue.